Is Terrorism Ever justified?
- Thread starter unlimited
- Start date
Spy Moose:
I had replied to you. See my response if you might?
I had replied to you. See my response if you might?
Solve:
What is wrong about it?
What is wrong about it?
By you proposing the question 'whats wrong about it', it kinda leads me to belive that you are suggesting that somethings right about it!! Is this the case??
Johm Smith:
Yes, it is an effective military tactic. It is therefore fundementally "right" in the circumstances which it would be.
Yes, it is an effective military tactic. It is therefore fundementally "right" in the circumstances which it would be.
Solve:
So you would not kill a murderer to save his victim? Or kill an enemy soldier if you were a soldier yourself?
So you would not kill a murderer to save his victim? Or kill an enemy soldier if you were a soldier yourself?
No, no you don't. Everyone has killed at least on living thing, at one point, whether its pulling weeds, cookin a live lobster, squashinga bug, or shooting an animal or stabbing a man.
We're all murderers one way or another. Not that it matters, because theres no afterlife in which we can be punished.
We're all murderers one way or another. Not that it matters, because theres no afterlife in which we can be punished.
Sniffy:
Kill all men and that will stop the killing? Men as in males, or men as in all of humanity?
Hapsburg:
There is certainly a difference betwixt "murder" and "killing".
Kill all men and that will stop the killing? Men as in males, or men as in all of humanity?
Hapsburg:
There is certainly a difference betwixt "murder" and "killing".
Is terrorism ever justified?
Let me ask this:
If Joe thinks that act X is justified, but Mike thinks that it isn't, is it justified or not?
If Arabs think that act X is justified, but Christians think that it isn't, is it justified?
As you can see, I hope ...the concept of "justification" must be better defined or we're simply arguing whether Mike or Joe is right or wrong. When we say that something is "justified" are we saying/implying that that's the verdict of all of the people in the world? ...or just a few? And if just a few, who?
Baron Max
Let me ask this:
If Joe thinks that act X is justified, but Mike thinks that it isn't, is it justified or not?
If Arabs think that act X is justified, but Christians think that it isn't, is it justified?
As you can see, I hope ...the concept of "justification" must be better defined or we're simply arguing whether Mike or Joe is right or wrong. When we say that something is "justified" are we saying/implying that that's the verdict of all of the people in the world? ...or just a few? And if just a few, who?
Baron Max
kriminal99
Registered Senior Member
I believe terrorism is justified in many cases. I believe that if you refuse to try to come to an understanding with someone, and instead force that person to behave according to your naive views, then any degree of force is justified to stop you and all who support your doing so. I also believe there is no way to differentiate this from "overthrowing tyranny" from an objective perspective. The only way to solve the problem is for the 2 sides to come to an agreement willingly (even if its just 1 person).
I also believe it is up to the person being forced to accept a view to decide what balance between trying to cause someone to understand your need for them to follow their views (when it really is necessary like regarding murder or something) and severity of the action used to try and force you to do so warrants violence. For instance someone might follow a law and decide to try and change it through politics if they truly believe the system is capable of being fair.
I also believe that the more deadly the single person has the potential to become, the safer the individual is from a government.
Some various counter arguments that I feel are wrong:
That terrorism attacks the wrong people: The people on the streets of the us are not innocent, they fund the governments which act in ways that motivate terrorists and they allow such actions to continue. This type of thinking is recognized by governments all the time: examples: uneasiness with countries trying to be neutral in major wars, invasions of countries like afghanistan which merely harbour terrorists etc. The truth is people in US have too high of an opinon of themselves and are too unfamiliar with death thinking it is something that "only happens to non-verbal supporting characters". We sit in the relatively comfortable USA while we send soldiers who accelerate every day violence to the point where survival is difficult. We may have earned this relative safety within the confines of the US, but our will to close ourselves off (allowing 3rd world countries to exist in parallel with ours) is ultimately responsible for violence pouring over to the us. By this I mean basically, you are starving and your neighbor has enough food for 2 but refuses to share, you are going to do what you have to do.
That terrorism is too unanticipated and doesn't give people time to react to your claims without bloodshed. The US government has counterargued this reasoning forever, claiming that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Random people are often made examples of, all of course who "didn't know" it was that serious or didn't know they could get caught (which if you accept that the human sense of morality is a sense of power, you realize are one and the same)
I also believe it is up to the person being forced to accept a view to decide what balance between trying to cause someone to understand your need for them to follow their views (when it really is necessary like regarding murder or something) and severity of the action used to try and force you to do so warrants violence. For instance someone might follow a law and decide to try and change it through politics if they truly believe the system is capable of being fair.
I also believe that the more deadly the single person has the potential to become, the safer the individual is from a government.
Some various counter arguments that I feel are wrong:
That terrorism attacks the wrong people: The people on the streets of the us are not innocent, they fund the governments which act in ways that motivate terrorists and they allow such actions to continue. This type of thinking is recognized by governments all the time: examples: uneasiness with countries trying to be neutral in major wars, invasions of countries like afghanistan which merely harbour terrorists etc. The truth is people in US have too high of an opinon of themselves and are too unfamiliar with death thinking it is something that "only happens to non-verbal supporting characters". We sit in the relatively comfortable USA while we send soldiers who accelerate every day violence to the point where survival is difficult. We may have earned this relative safety within the confines of the US, but our will to close ourselves off (allowing 3rd world countries to exist in parallel with ours) is ultimately responsible for violence pouring over to the us. By this I mean basically, you are starving and your neighbor has enough food for 2 but refuses to share, you are going to do what you have to do.
That terrorism is too unanticipated and doesn't give people time to react to your claims without bloodshed. The US government has counterargued this reasoning forever, claiming that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Random people are often made examples of, all of course who "didn't know" it was that serious or didn't know they could get caught (which if you accept that the human sense of morality is a sense of power, you realize are one and the same)
Sniffy:
And this will accomplish...what?
And this will accomplish...what?
I was only joking.
However perhaps if we were able to do something about man's (male's) aggressive tendancies we may also be able to address issues of violence, terrorism and war generally.
And I agree with you although heinous as all forms of warfare are, terrorism is just one tactic in a broad spectrum aimed at winning by disorientating or demoralising the enemy.
Still wrong though.
However perhaps if we were able to do something about man's (male's) aggressive tendancies we may also be able to address issues of violence, terrorism and war generally.
And I agree with you although heinous as all forms of warfare are, terrorism is just one tactic in a broad spectrum aimed at winning by disorientating or demoralising the enemy.
Still wrong though.