Debate: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT TERRORISM CAN BE JUSTIFIED

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Were the atomic bombs terrorism?

Definitely. That was their express purpose - to instill fear through destruction. And they did just that.

[AngryTitusPullo]

No. Civilians, even unarmed combatants should not be harm in anyway, whatever our goals.

[Takizama]

In order to say something is justifiable or unjustifiable, we need to say to what point of view the justifiable or unjustifiable is in. You are more lickely to say that terrorism is justifiable because ur the terrorist. It goes the same for the contrary.If you are the terrorist u can justify anything and if ur on the receving end of the spectrim you can say it is unjustifiable. Or if ur the humanatraian type u can also say it is unjustifiable. We need To get out of indivualistics and into to logistics, however that is inpossible because the defination of the word supports iduvilism. So i vote unsure, because their is no logical answer and it is all a point of view that can be backed up with anything, and it creates the no true scotmans falseiality.


sorry for the spelling errors, i was on my phone and cant correct them easially.

[* Matolo Swazulu *]

Makes for interesting reading!
Thanks all for your inputs guys.

[Himster]

Hell yeah, if the Nazis occupied my country I'd be bombing the crap out of those arse holes.
Vive la Resistance.

[basics]

" We do stupid things in war; we do terrible things in war, at times in smoked filled policy rooms, sometimes at the point of the bayonet. Hitler didn't want to bomb the English cities though more on policy grounds rather than sentimentality. Churchill escalated that deliberately to distract and maintain the morale of his electorate, and get the Germans off the RAF's back.

Churchill let Coventry burn."

Condottiere 40K,

What a ridiculous statement to make. That man knew about terrorism first hand and knew how it must be dealt with. He saw it in the Sudan, South Africa and Spain, the first two by personal experience so whatever he authorised was done for the benefit of his country's survival. So, as the Germans blootered Coventry what was he supposed to do, you suggesting that he stood back and let it happen? I mean the Germans were bombing hell out of everywhere not just Coventry.

" The price of victory was the eclipse of the Empire, the supremacy of the United States and the establishment of an Iron Curtain that enslaved half of Europe. So it really comes down to your perspective if the cost to yourself and others was worth it."

Of course it does and we are still a nation free as free can be because we won thanks in a great part to the bravery of RAF Bomber Command. It got to the source. It gave the Germans a taste of their own medicine and in the long run gives you the freedom you don't seem to appreciate.

" The Germans and the Japanese reaped the whirlwind. But let's not be under the illusion that the Allies didn't cross the line in order to ensure that their vision of the world won."

Well, an argument can be put that Russia and China are now copying our way of life. That Asia has seen remarkable progress along those lines which none of them mentioned may well be experiencing had the Germans and Japs not been stopped. If we are in decline perhaps the main reason lies in the Spiritual aspect and not because we still aren't great places to live.

" As for our terrorists, they come in all shapes and sizes, with varying degrees of belief in their cause. Sometimes naive, sometimes cynical, sometimes brainwashed. They can believe that the end justify the means. And so can we."

When talking of our terrorists we talk of men and women who for the most had been given new life in our countries, free to think and believe as they like. Our problem is that in doing so we have tolerated people who want to change us to what they believe and because of EU directives we cannot send them back to where they should belong. The strange thing is that most of the countries that feed and water and finance them are nations that we Brits created ourselves.

[* Matolo Swazulu *]

Thanks for another great contribution, basics...

[Morkonan]

.... But overall, I believe that terrorism is justifiable, only if the cause is just and right. I hope you believe that too. Thank you for reading!

I do not believe in "Situational Ethics", therefore I do not agree that your argument supports an affirmative belief in "justifiable terrorism."

Murder is wrong. Murder is an unlawful killing. In these cases, it's an unethical killing of an innocent. Once can not judge an individual simply on the basis of their presence at a location, the color of their skin or even their unevidenced and, therefore, assumed beliefs. It can not be done. Therefore, it's illegal and, from this particular point of view, immoral and completely unethical.

[AqD]

No. Civilians, even unarmed combatants should not be harm in anyway, whatever our goals.

So I'm free to kill you or elect someone to kill you, and then lay down arms and walk away peacefully?