Is Terrorism Ever justified?

[kriminal99]

Well, yes. But does that "justify" terrorism? Does that "justify" the suicide bombings of your own nation's people? Does that "justify" killing non-combatant women and children? Does that "justify" blowing up a hospital or a school full of non-combatants?

And lest anyone forget, I'm still trying to figure out what it means when we say, "justify"? Does that mean that everyone on Earth agrees? Or a majority agrees? Who or how many must agree that it's "justified" for it to be called "justified"? Or is it just a fuckin' word that we use?

Baron Max

Yes it does justify it. People often say that as if maybe it would be justified against the people in power, but not against the average person. But the average person is who is responsible for funding the people in power and allowing them to be where they are. There is signifigant reasoning behind the saying "If you are not with us, you are against us". The average person is just as responsible as the person in power. And as far as the people "not knowing any better" or any similar argument, every government uses this same reasoning to justify their enforcement of laws when a person did not know of them. Just as the government might say "You should have researched the laws and known not to do that", the terrorist could claim "You should have researched the foreign situation and stopped your government". In both cases if the person had no previous physical indication that what they were doing might be against the law, there is no way they COULD have known. But since the punishment of one person serves as such a physical indication of others, the government justifies punishing the one person by the need to control the rest of the people.

Everyone on the earth never unanimously agrees on anything. Even in a small community when people appear to have agreed on something its more often than not just social subversion. For instance the average new person who says "Hey I disagree" will have the community say to them "if you continue to disagree you will be a social reject because everyone else agrees" You might get bad grades because of it, be restricted in how far you go in a career sense because noone agrees with you. So the end result is that much less new people disagree- Not because they think the arguments are sound mind you, but rather because they feel that agreeing is the best way to get what you want. You can spot this situation because if you challenge these beliefs or ask people to justify them, they will all give you different reasoning which often contradicts each other.

So now you have a government with some loudmouth in charge and a large number of people who are being subverted by said loudmouth although superficially they "agree".

 

[Baron Max]

So, Kriminal, are you saying that it's okay to kill people if you disagree with them? That disagreement with one person or group of people is a "justification" for killing OTHER people?

It seems to me that's what ye're saying, right? I mean, that's okay with me, but I don't want to put words into your mouth. You've used the words "government", but in further sentences, it seems to me that you've equate "government" with "people". Am I right?

Baron Max

 

[domesticated om]

Could someone please xplain to me how terrorism has 'worked' giving real life examples?

Boston Tea Party

 

[kriminal99]

So, Kriminal, are you saying that it's okay to kill people if you disagree with them? That disagreement with one person or group of people is a "justification" for killing OTHER people?

It seems to me that's what ye're saying, right? I mean, that's okay with me, but I don't want to put words into your mouth. You've used the words "government", but in further sentences, it seems to me that you've equate "government" with "people". Am I right?

Baron Max

Not exactly. Government is meant to be people who are exerting force over you in some form or another. IE If you have a neighbor and you NEVER interact with him, its not justified to kill him of course.

However, to give an extreme version of this viewpoint, if for example a local government wants to extract money from you using the guise of a poorly formed argument regarding "speeding" being dangerous, or wants to tell you when you can buy alcohol, and then refuses to hear your arguments against the subject (the politicians just ignore you because they think they are in a position of physical power over you so they don't have to) then you may be justified in using force against him because its your only remaining option to regain your freedom.

The idea is, trying to change your behavior with a threat of physical force, and then refusing to consider that their desired change in behavior is unjustified (which they feel they can do because they can exert physical force against you and force you to do what they want regardless of weather you agree) is an aggressive act and cannot be stopped with anything but physical force.

@Sniffy

That depends how you define terrorism. To some degree all governments work on the principle... Make an example of someone who does something you don't like to scare the rest into doing what you want.


Anyways I'm not advocating violence here people. What I'm saying is that the only alternative is to be so open to other people's viewpoints and be so active in covincing them of the necessity of your actions as a government that noone ever believes what you did was wrong or unnessecary. Or at least to the degree that noone resorts to terrorism. But if they do, you brought it upon yourself.

 

[Baron Max]

...or wants to tell you when you can buy alcohol, and then refuses to hear your arguments against the subject .... then you may be justified in using force against him because its your only remaining option to regain your freedom.

Hmm, perhaps. But does that justify my blowing up a bunch of unsuspecting, unprepared and, perhaps innocent, women and children in order to try to force the politician to listen to my complaints?

See? That's what the terrorists do ..they do NOT go after the actual cause of their "problems", they go after and kill/maim someone totally unprepared and, in most senses, innocent of any wrongdoing in connection to the problem. I can see attacking the politician directly, but innocent civilians??

...But if they do, you brought it upon yourself.

But did you bring it upon all those unsuspecting women and children?

Baron Max

 

[DarkThorn]

is terrorism something that can only be bad? let me remind you that terrorism has been around since civilization began, many acts of terrorism are looked well upon but it is not realized.

your thoughts?

Personally no terrorism is not a bad only thing.
I feel for many small terrorist groups throughout the world simply because i can relate to what they are fighting for. Freedom.

America gained its independence by fighting the English which would be seen today as terrorism. It can even be likened to the Northern Irish struggle. Yet America celebrates this struggle they had and won and that is ok. If Scotland was to begin a campaign to gain full independence from England now, there is a possibilty those involved would be jailed for life, killed by bombs and guns or forced to end the attacks as the I.R.A have been forced to do. The Palestinians are going through the exact same thing, as are the Basque groups, the Catalans, etc, etc.

Al Queda are fighting for something they believe in. They simply want America to stop interfering with middle Eastern affairs and to stay off of the lands they belong to. Americans would not like it if thousands of armed Taliban troops, Al Queda henchmen, and so on appeared on the streets with tanks and bombs to remove the president from power. [some may like that idea]. Or if they were there with armed bases and a continuing presence for years, it would begin to grate eventually. Scottish people would hate it, so would Chinese, Russian, French, etc. We all love our countries and that is what it is about. Loving your nation and its people. Longing for the freedom that is given to so many other countries but never getting anywhere. It must get frustrating.

I am not saying violence is the way to go but what i am saying is that these people the whole world over are fighting for a cause they believe dearly in and a lot of them are dying for it or spending their lives in prison.
They are wrong to kill innocent people but who is truly innocent in the world?
Wars have to be fought somehow and someplace.

If this is incoherent i apologise. It is 6:30 am here and i have not slept.

 

[DarkThorn]

Hmm, perhaps. But does that justify my blowing up a bunch of unsuspecting, unprepared and, perhaps innocent, women and children in order to try to force the politician to listen to my complaints?

See? That's what the terrorists do ..they do NOT go after the actual cause of their "problems", they go after and kill/maim someone totally unprepared and, in most senses, innocent of any wrongdoing in connection to the problem. I can see attacking the politician directly, but innocent civilians??


Baron Max

They actually are going straight for the problem when they do this. By killing 'innocents' they are actually forcing the very people who vote the politicians in to turn against them. If they are blowing up tourist resorts, public transport, etc then the governments lose money. So they lose votes, money, resources [after spending billions on fighting the terrorists thousands of miles away], etc. Terrorists might come across as mindless barbarians but they have a level of intelligence and determination most people will never compare to. They are ex military men and/or patriots with a passion.

It seems unfair to the victims of these attacks but that is what a war is. A game where eventually somebody has to win. It would be good if someone was to walk away now and let the wounds heal but it is unlikely to happen anywhere in the world there is terrorism.

 

[Happeh]

See? That's what the terrorists do ..they do NOT go after the actual cause of their "problems", they go after and kill/maim someone totally unprepared and, in most senses, innocent of any wrongdoing in connection to the problem. I can see attacking the politician directly, but innocent civilians??

But why is this?

Because the politician hides in a bunker behind bulletproof glass and puts the women and children and innocents out in front. Right?

If the politicians and military had the balls to come out and fight for what they want, then they would pay the price. Instead the politicians say what they want, then they go hide. The military hides inside of their airplanes, hides inside of tanks, and hides on their army bases.

Who else is left to target? Innocent civilians.

 

[Baron Max]

Who else is left to target? Innocent civilians.

So because the terrorists/insurgents can't get to the "correct" target, they settle for women and children and wedding parties? ...and you consider that justified?

I don't exactly disagree with what ye're saying, EXCEPT .......you seem to be using that as justification? Is that true? Is that how you feel?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

It seems unfair to the victims of these attacks but that is what a war is.

Is that what you feel that terrorism is? ...war?

Or is it simply taking the law into their own hands? Or the few trying to force their way/ideals onto others?

Al Queda are fighting for something they believe in. They simply want America to stop interfering with middle Eastern affairs and to stay off of the lands they belong to.

But why and how do they (or anyone else) consider it Al Queda's role to dictate such national policy to other nations? I mean, take Saudi Arabia ...that nation is friendly, for the most part, to the USA. So is it the role of a few militant individuals to dictate foreign policy for all Saudis?

How can anyone call that a fight for freedom? And can or should the nations of the world permit such things to happen?

Baron Max

 

[The Marquis]

I would have sympathy with any terrorist organisation which had a genuine grievance, and which limited its targets to those which had a direct bearing on an oppressor.

Attacking innocents is appealing to the lowest common denominator - which is in itself understandable, but not effective. Corner a hibernating bear, and you'll have nothing but an angry bear on your hands.
I wonder what the effect would have been had the 9-11 targets been strictly economic - ie, Halliburton or what have you. This is not a rhetorical question - I am in fact considering the potential difference in reaction on the part of the USA.

 

[DarkThorn]

Is that what you feel that terrorism is? ...war?

Or is it simply taking the law into their own hands? Or the few trying to force their way/ideals onto others?



But why and how do they (or anyone else) consider it Al Queda's role to dictate such national policy to other nations? I mean, take Saudi Arabia ...that nation is friendly, for the most part, to the USA. So is it the role of a few militant individuals to dictate foreign policy for all Saudis?

How can anyone call that a fight for freedom? And can or should the nations of the world permit such things to happen?

Baron Max

It is war and for the most part they are doing what the majority want them to do. It is just that the majority will not say they want it to be done for a number of reasons.

You have to go back through history and look at colonisations, empire building, etc. This is where most of the problems come from. I am not saying that what the terrorists do are for the good of everybody, that is how most countries end up with civil war because they do n ot all agree.

I still however sympathise and feel for most but not all terrorist groups past and present.

 

[Baron Max]

It is war and for the most part they are doing what the majority want them to do. It is just that the majority will not say they want it to be done for a number of reasons.

But the "majority" of whom??? Even if I believed you, which I don't, the question to you still stands ...for what "majority" are they fighting?

You have to go back through history and look at colonisations, empire building, etc. This is where most of the problems come from.

So it's strictly revenge? And worse, revenge for something that happened a gazillion years ago in some far away land? And I'll have to ask ...just how far back in history shall we go to find these "reasons" for mass murder?

I still however sympathise and feel for most but not all terrorist groups past and present.

So if I don't like something that nation 'X' is doing, and I go out and blow up a group of people in nation 'Y', a thousand miles away, you would feel that I was justified to commit wholesale murder? ...against the people of 'Y', because of something that 'X' did or was doing?

Baron Max

 

[DarkThorn]

yes.

the majority of people in scotland want independence and the only thing stopping a terrorist group becoming active is more to do with the majority wanting a peaceful solution sometimes though peace is not an option.

 

[DarkThorn]

and it is not revenge. it is taking back what belongs to a group of people, a race.

i feel for the american indians, the aborigines, the scots, welsh, africans, etc, etc because for hundreds of years they have been ruled and that is wrong to destroy a nation of people like that.

 

[Baron Max]

and it is not revenge. it is taking back what belongs to a group of people, a race.

But you didn't answer my question: "So if I don't like something that nation 'X' is doing, and I go out and blow up a group of people in nation 'Y', a thousand miles away, you would feel that I was justified to commit wholesale murder? ...against the people of 'Y', because of something that 'X' did or was doing?"

Or ...if the Native Americans want their land back, would you consider it justified for them to make vicious, deadly attacks on, say, the innocent, unsuspecting people of New Zealand????

...and that is wrong to destroy a nation of people like that.

Sure it was wrong, but it's done, it's history and nothing that anyone can do will change that ....even murdering all of the people in New Zealand won't bring the land back to the Native Americans!

So what do you do when something in history was wrong? Do you expect to go back and change history?

Baron Max

 

[nameless]

Terrorism seems like a highly effective attention-getting and influential device, especially for the poor and marginalized.
The rich control the media and the money and thusly the political juggernaut.
The poor have terrorism. There is no defence. Perhaps, ultimately, the most powerful tool of transformation...

Unfortunately, fascist authoritarian 'states' arise to 'give' the frightened people security.
(Now, if the neo-fascists and the terrorists worked in concert...
(Ref; pre-Nazi Germany..))

 

[DarkThorn]

But you didn't answer my question: "So if I don't like something that nation 'X' is doing, and I go out and blow up a group of people in nation 'Y', a thousand miles away, you would feel that I was justified to commit wholesale murder? ...against the people of 'Y', because of something that 'X' did or was doing?"

The answer to your question is - it would depend on what the nation you were blowing up had done wrong in the first place. If for example they had a president that was generally hated by your country but who actually wasn't a threat at all then no it would not be justified. If the country you were bombing was killing millions of people and taking land then yes bomb the shit out of them and make sure it doesn't happen.

Or ...if the Native Americans want their land back, would you consider it justified for them to make vicious, deadly attacks on, say, the innocent, unsuspecting people of New Zealand????

No now see i would expect them to take vicious unsuspecting attacks on the people who invaded there country so if that meant those who are now living there, so be it.



Sure it was wrong, but it's done, it's history and nothing that anyone can do will change that ....even murdering all of the people in New Zealand won't bring the land back to the Native Americans!

So what do you do when something in history was wrong? Do you expect to go back and change history?

History cannot be changed but the future can be. Why should a country that was raped and abused by another country continue to be forever until every piece of its culture, language, dress, traditions, etc are all diluted down and removed entirely. This is what has generally happened the world over.
Scotland for example is struggling to keep hold of its own traditions and language because for 300 years it was left to die. If you spoke Gaidhlig then you were laughed at or forced to speak English, we couldn't wear our kilts because it was seen as a sign of hostility towards the English and our pipes were banned because they were war instruments (mostly a lot of shite), the problem in Scotland is that the lower half of the country agree with England and the Highlands/Central Region do not. The majority want to see independence but not if it was to cause a split in our country. The Lowland Scots have been known to hate the Highlanders and they would turn against us again, The Scottish soldiers made to join a British Army would have to fight against us, it would get silly. However this is not the case in most places. Some countries have a majority of 99% who want to see themselves free of something. Should they try to fight for that peacefully/ Ofcourse. But if after a certain length of time peace isn't working then why shouldn't they use force. After all. It was taken by force.

 

[Baron Max]

DarkThorn, it just seems to me that you, and many others, are searching desperately to find some way of justifying mass murder. It seems that ye're saying something like, "If a group of people don't like something, then they're justified in murdering a bunch of other people!"

Terrorism, as well as murder (even mass murder) is certainly going to keep happening in the world. I don't think that there's any way to stop it. But by the same token, I don't think we, as a human society, can condone it by making excuses for it or seeking "justification" for it.

In fact, whenever we do, it just lends support for the terrorists or the murderers. (I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that right after the first murder was "excused" as "not guilty by reason of insanity", the murder rate increased considerably! I.e., we "condoned it" and actually lent support for future murder!)

You mentioned Scotland ...would you consider it just if the Scots were to start murdering the English people by the thousands? In this day and time? After all of the history is/has passed? And you could actually justify that? You could justify the seeking of personal/individual revenge for past wrong-doing?

Baron Max

 

[DarkThorn]

DarkThorn, it just seems to me that you, and many others, are searching desperately to find some way of justifying mass murder. It seems that ye're saying something like, "If a group of people don't like something, then they're justified in murdering a bunch of other people!"

Terrorism, as well as murder (even mass murder) is certainly going to keep happening in the world. I don't think that there's any way to stop it. But by the same token, I don't think we, as a human society, can condone it by making excuses for it or seeking "justification" for it.

In fact, whenever we do, it just lends support for the terrorists or the murderers. (I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that right after the first murder was "excused" as "not guilty by reason of insanity", the murder rate increased considerably! I.e., we "condoned it" and actually lent support for future murder!)

You mentioned Scotland ...would you consider it just if the Scots were to start murdering the English people by the thousands? In this day and time? After all of the history is/has passed? And you could actually justify that? You could justify the seeking of personal/individual revenge for past wrong-doing?

Baron Max

Baron you do have a good point. Murder is wrong but it took years of murder, rape, degredation, etc to shape most of the countries terrorism comes from. What do you suggest these people do to get back what rightfully belongs to them?

As for Scots murdering thousands of English people, no it would not be right if we were to go and just pick out random English men, women or children to kill. A lot of Scots live in England and have developed the accent, the same goes for the Irish and Welsh. All of whom i have nothing against. Even the pure English person is fine because they had nothing to do with what happened three hundred years ago. In fact it was a lot of Scottish people too who fucked up Scotland so like i said before it would get messy. Basically if i was to do anything violent, my targets would have to be legitimate. So if i was to blow up a hotel where a politician was meant to be staying and some people died in the process (it would be sad but that is war). Like it or not terrorists see there fight as a fight against an enemy. Society tells us they are pathetic murderers but i beg to differ. If i was to land an army on the shores of America tomorrow and tell the Americans we were moving them out of their homes, taking their businesses, changing how their country works, etc. They would take up arms and fight. I could then call it terrorism but the American people against it would call it war.
Is there no group in the world you feel for? What about the Albanians? The Chechens? The Basques? The Catalans? The Palestinians?
All of them have been fighting for a long time in order to gain their countries freedom back for the people. There will always be opposition even from people from the same country but mostly the majority agrees.
You call terrorists murderers, i call them soldiers, protectors, defenders, liberal troops, true patriots. Don't forget they die themselves fighting for what most other people want but are too afraid to fight for.

Look at it this way. Imagine tomorrow you woke up to find your country had been taken over by China (a nice big superpower). Imagine for a minute that your country [asuming you are american] is not as big or powerful. The Chinese have moved in, taken control and have started to dictate how you should live. Do you accept this and get on with it. Embrace your new leaders and shrug it off as something that has happened? Or do you kill as many of them as possible, make it hard for them to sustain there ability to keep control, destroy them so they will leave. Ofcourse you would. We all love our country. Luckily for America this is almost unlikely to ever happen but for smaller countries it happens everyday. The English did it for centuries, The Romans did it, The Vikings had a go. Now in this day and age - The Americans are doing it. Not only by entering countries with bombs and guns or threatening to but with television, businesses, language, etc, etc, etc.
Please see this for what it is. I do not hate Americans but i see America take over the world every day and there is nothing i can do about it. I choose to live peacefully and i have problems of my own to deal with in 'my world' but some see it as an obligation to send the American giant home. Not only America England is right there with them all of the time and it is because England has been sucked into the American machine.

I am not great at explaining what i mean but i know or hope you will undertstand what i am saying. I am not violent but sometimes that is the only way to do things. I want peace all over the world but until everybody has been satisfied it will never happen. Let these groups have what they need and they will stop. Opening a whole new set of doors for the ones who oppose their views. The war rages on. I do not have the answers. I just know how it feels to want something i am unable to have unless i fight for it peacefully with words or violently with weapons.