Is terrorism ever justified?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

In the light of the recent London bombings and the continued campaigns in Israel and Iraq (and various other places) I just wondered what people people thought about the question

'Is terrorism ever justified?'

Follow up question: if you answer 'yes', why and how?


usual rules apply, keep it nice please I am interested in peoples' views and don't want the thread closed by the moderators!

[Elu Barcino]

Well, it depends how you define terrorism. Some would class the French Resistance and the Warsaw Uprising as terrorism, while other people would not. It's all a matter of opinion. I think that my two examples weren't evil, but the attacks on the World Trade Centre were sick, so I suppose I think that special cases of terrorism could probably be justified, yes.

[Rapax]

I think we could very well say that terrorism aimed against civilians is never justified. Spreading terror on enemy troops, well that's the way to go if you have no other means of fighting them.

[enkidu]

terrorism is just an angry last resort for those who arent listened to.

but the effect of it is to cause people to listen even less, fear more, and gives government the authority to set up a more controlled society( ie police state).

I think a lot of terrorist attacks are done so the state being attacked gains public support(funding)for unpopular agendas.

I also think a lot of terrorist leaders are working in opposition to the cause they claim to support, and take advantage of blindly angry potential recruits. Traitors, tools, and angry fools.

[Jiggles]

No, terrorism cannot be justified. Why? Because, though there isn't a set definition of the word (anyone who says that there is is a liar), the general idea is that terrorism is a military attack on innocent non-combatants. If there is a way to justify the killing of innocents then I haven't heard it.

[Erik]

I think terrorism can be justified is some cases but not many.

If a regime kills your people you are justified to use terrorism against supporters of that regime.
During WWII for example it was justified to attack any supporters of the nazi's.
The problem is that you have to be very carefull not to kill anybody who isn't a supporter.

[LegionX]

ive been agianst the war for a long time but its not going to change what the currupt.....bush administration dose (other than screw up our country further) i just dont see why we are still there no womd but i know we cant leave until the iraqies can fight for themselfs (unlike the french ....oooo burn)

[Carousel]

Yes it can in my opinion, but only if the terror is aimed at military personelle of an occupying force - its called Freedom Fighting.

Whilst some might classify the attacks on US troops as such, the US arent an occupying force in my opinion. Whilst I am against the war, they have removed an oppresive government, and are trying to reinstate and Iraqi controlled government.

Please dont take this as a cue to start disagreeing with me, if you wish to disagree, quote me in a new topic. As tactical says, stay on topic please.

Can terrorism ever be justified?

Whats your view?

[Jesus The Inane]

I think it can be justified. But remember it depends on your morality. Anyway, like the terrorist are doing right now, by attacking civilians they put the morale of the country down and this will make the people want to end the war as soon as possible which might help the group using terror tactics win the war. The end justifies the means.

[Simetrical]

I would say that under any reasonable circumstances (i.e., not the kind cooked up in novels where you have to save the world or something), deliberately attacking people who you have no reason to believe have attempted to do you any harm, either directly or indirectly, is not acceptable. Attacking probable enemy combatants is; attacking those who are probably providing material support to enemy combatants in their role as such is (even medics, IMO, although of course that's against the First Geneva Convention); attacking those you have no specific reason to believe fall into either category is never acceptable.

I'd say even attacking civilians in charge of the military operations (e.g., Dubya), or even those who just authorized or funded the operations (Congressmen), is basically war, not terrorism. Attacking the ideological but not material supporters of the soldiers is no good, and neither is attacking those who voted for or otherwise materially supported those who materially support the enemy combatants (two steps of remove from the actual people attacking you).

So basically, my definition of terrorism is pretty narrow compared to that of many (attacking politicans and medics, for instance), but within that definition, I believe that it's absolutely and totally wrong.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and moved from The Political Mudpit. "Discuss ethics, morals, and religion in here."

-Simetrical

[tommh]

This would mean that almost all nuclear and biological weapons are terror weapons and those that wield them or threaten to wield them are terrorists. It would also mean that the Allied bombing campaign during WWII (especially the night fire-bombing raids) were terrorist acts. Not to mention the many other instances of modern states warring on civilians.

For instance during the first and second Gulf wars there were many direct civilian losses. Including the Chinese embassy. Indirect losss due to infrastructure strikes were also substantial, cutting off power and telecommunications is garanteed to lead to civilian losse of life. Or how about the Chinese conquest and occupation of Tibet?

And what about states that slaughter their own people? Was Stalin a terrorist? How about the US when it killed hundreds of thousands of Native Americans? What about the use of Goverment troops against striking coal miners in the late 1800s?

In fact the doctrine of "total war", first grasped by Napoleon, perfected in the US Civil War and finaly formalized by Clauswitz, has at its core the idea of war as a activity engaged in by the entire state and which must be visited on an entire state. This is the purpose of the vast Soviet and US Nuclear Arsenals.

So try again. Find another way to demonize your enemies. Personally this attempt to paint your enemies black and yourselves lilly white is a waste of time. The fact of the matter is that from Bin Ladens point of view the Twin Towers were a legitimate target, and he felt fully justified, just as the US felt Justified in its response. The bottom line for me is we need to deal with it not worry about justifications. Dealing with it does not involve deep moral arguments, it involves killing the people directly involved and convincing ithers of like mind through whatever means nessecary that it not in their interest to follow suit.

[JvlivsCaesar]

Tommh is onto something their. Terrorism as an act against another nation or at the same nation by a political minority can be considered as an act of Total War wich by deffenition includes the entire population of BOTH of the oposing forces as combatans/partisipants in the war. Willing or by :wub: luck of beeing born in a wrong place at the wrong time all memebers of a state ingaged in a guerilla/terrorist war are partisipants of that war.
Just my 2 cents.

[Clibby]

Here's something to ponder:

What is the difference between a terrorist, and a patriot?





Whoever wins the war...

[Kagetora]

It all comes down to who writes the history books.

[JvlivsCaesar]

Here's something to ponder:

What is the difference between a terrorist, and a patriot?

In my opinion absolutly nothing
patriotism and extremism are different however

[MoROmeTe]

In my opinion it all depends on the definition of terrorism each of us employs. And on the definition of justificable acts against an enemy each of us employs...

I'm with tommh here... Any action that is aimed at the enemy combatants, at the carriers of the enemy ideology, at the spokesperson(s) and flagperson(s) of the enemy, any assault against the economy of the enemy or against the supporting institutions, political and social, of the enemy is justificable from the point of view of winning the conflict, which is the only point of view that is valid in such situations.

That care should be taken ,when possible, so that the civilian (non implicated citizen) cost is as low as possible is something relevant, but only once the goal, victory, can be safely achieved.

So terrorism is only that attack aimed only at civilians and civilian targets that can contribute nothing to victory except the fear instilled in the population by the terror attacks.

And it is strange to say but even this can be justified if fear is the only way to take out n enemy that only answers to fear.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

folks, first off many apologies for starting a thread and then not participating, real life (ie. work) got in the way........

Whilst some might classify the attacks on US troops as such, the US arent an occupying force in my opinion.

Difficult to argue, many Iraqi's see the US as an occupying force. I would, however, tend to agree with you as they are there at the request of the democratically elected government and it is only a minority that are fighting against them. Trouble is, it is possible to apply the same definition to the French Resistance........

I'd say even attacking civilians in charge of the military operations (e.g., Dubya), or even those who just authorized or funded the operations (Congressmen), is basically war, not terrorism.

That definition gets very difficult as it can easily be extended to apply to just about anyone. eg. no-one argues that attacking a US tank in Iraq is terrorism. By your argument you could also justifiably attack support personel for that tank (including civilians). Again, makes sense. However, could you extend that to attack the companies that provide those civilian support personel? probably. How about the companies that supply the companies that supply the support personel? If you take it to it's logical extreme the guy that packs the bags at the supermarket for the tank's support personel is a justifiable target as he is helping. You are back to the principal of total war, and if that is acceptable, why do we all get so het up about terrorism?

That care should be taken ,when possible, so that the civilian (non implicated citizen) cost is as low as possible is something relevant, but only once the goal, victory, can be safely achieved.

Now this statement is, I believe onto something. If you accept that, using the total war argument, you can justify attacking pretty much anyone, then maybe the definition of real terrorism is the use of unrestrained force that makes absolutely no attempt to minimise casualties. Even the worst acts of state 'terrorism' (use of the atomic bombs in WWII) basically took place as a result of an attempt to minimise overall casualties.

If you then apply that to Iraq, the car-bomb attacks are randomly targeting passers-by, with no thought of minimising casualties (in fact in many cases the idea is to maximise casualties). If the insurgents were purely fighting a war a resistance, then they would be purely targeting coalition forces and 'collaborating' Iraqi forces. They would accept that some colatoral (how I hate that word!) casualties would be unavoidable, but they would try to minimise them. This is the pattern of freedom fighters throughout history (for recent history think the various resistance forces in WWII)

Where freedom fighters cross the line into terrorism is, to my mind, where they deliberately carry out attacks which either don't really care who gets killed (eg. many IRA, ETA etc attacks), or deliberately try to get the biggest random body count (eg. 9/11, Madrid and London bombings)

However, if you as a freedom fighter are attacking a democracy, then maybe you could argue that the point of causing maximum casualties is to cause the democracy to change its mind and pull out of your country (kinda the same argument as dropping the nuclear bombs, more casualties now mean much less in the long run).

For instance during the first and second Gulf wars there were many direct civilian losses. Including the Chinese embassy. Indirect losss due to infrastructure strikes were also substantial, cutting off power and telecommunications is garanteed to lead to civilian losse of life. Or how about the Chinese conquest and occupation of Tibet?

Again, I think you can apply the test of whether they attempted to minimise casualties. The Chinese embassy was a mistake, pure and simple so it doesn't count (however unfortunate). Indirect infrastructure strikes are a fact of war, you are trying to minimise overall casualties by finishing the war quickly. Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, would be classified as state terrorism as the state is trying to maximise the number of casualties (albeit in a specific group).

Another interesting example of what might be termed as terrorism is the bombing of Dresden at the end of WWII. That was a deliberate targeting of civilians, is it terrorism though?

[tommh]

I beleive Terrorism has been used in so many ways to mean so many things that its lost all meaning. Even if we agree on a definition we will never find one that only encompasses the acts we want it to, because frankly every state has had its "terrorists". The commitees of correspondance acted to burn out and terrorize Tories and drove many to Canada during the American Revolution, the many, many acts on both sides during the Civil war are well known, and the KKK and Jim Crow were systems that depended on terror to keep African Americans in line. Virtually every other country in the world has simialr stories. And after a lot of thought I've decided that much of the strategic bombing campaign during WWII was morally reprehensible and was terrorism of the worst sort, especially the night fire bombing raids.