Is Terrorism Justifiable?

Discussion in 'Terrorism' started by DZero, Jul 6, 2016.

  1. DZero

    DZero Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Is there ever a situation where it is the right thing to resort to terrorism?
    Or is terrorism always wrong?
     
  2. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would like to say yes, it is always wrong, but if my country was taken over by a more powerful enemy, they were killing my people, and I couldn't fight them in a conventional manner, I would probably resort to terrorism. Being American, that would mean that it would have to be technologically advanced aliens, but you get the idea.
     
  3. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    U.S. congressman Peter King is notable for having openly expressed his sympathy for the IRA. The IRA was leading a terrorist campaign because the Catholic majority had been deprived of the right to vote in Northern Ireland.

    The CIA supplied weapons and training to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s when the Soviets tried to invade. Some of these rocket launchers were later used against American military helicopters after the U.S. invaded in 2001.
     
  4. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In the good old days terrorism was defined properly, as the targeting of civilians. Then the various military press folk started confusing the issue. Don't be confused.

    It's never justified to attack non-combatant civilian targets. The CIA did not supply AQ anything, they supplied the Mujaheddin in a limited capacity in its insurgency against Soviet military forces - they were not terrorists then.
     
  5. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    46,841
    Likes Received:
    18,955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The IRA activity in Northern Ireland was a terrorist activity. The fight by Afghans against the invading Sovieet -Russians was not terrorism it was actions by freedom fighters. When Alqueda and the Taliban attacked Afghans or Americans that Is terrorism.
     
  6. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree--especially since non-military civilians could be totally innocent. The dictators, plutocrats and oligarchs of this world do not consult the rest of us before they perpetrate their horrendous deeds, although they have made a habit of hiding behind governments and claiming that their actions are for the "good of all" when their doings become known.
     
  7. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Its all in who is doing the talking.
     
  8. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Biggest load of BS ever. Intention to kill innocents is vastly different from fighting against an invading military. Anyone who believes that above quote simply has no clue about what defines a terrorist and what defines a freedom fighter. Terrorists target civilians. Insurgents (freedom fighters) target occupying military forces. Notice the difference?
     
  9. DZero

    DZero Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Terrorism is the use of violence in pursuit of political aims(or religious/ideological aims), I wouldn't define terrorism based on who they target(innocent civilians, government officials, etc.). I think your viewing the definition as a moral issue(defining terrorism as evil by saying it has to target innocent civilians).
    So, if I formed a group and invaded the white house and killed guards and the president, would that be terrorism?
    If a group attacked a military base and killed many there, would that be terrorism?
     
  10. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is what I mean tho, the definition used to be simply until academics and media corps confused the issue. The stuff about political/religious/ideological aims are are clarifications on the foundation of the target type, to differentiate it from what should be considered crime and therefore a policing matter. Terrorism is a different order of crime.

    Confusing military targets is a side effect when the military is involved and co-located with civilians. Yes, military forces have mistakenly called attacks on military targets terrorism - but this used to be incorrect. These days people use the term however the f they like, but used properly the key point of terrorism is the deliberate targettting of civilians.

    The White House is a good question, its civilian infrastructure but guarded by the military.... so you could call it a terrorist attack. If a CONUS military base was attacked it is not terrorism, but rather asymmetric warfare.

    My definition is anything but a moral subjective distinction, its clearly objective, either the intended target is civilian or it is not.
     
  11. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In WW2, England decided to bomb German cities in order to damage the morale of the German people (civilians). Were the English terrorists or freedom fighters?
     
  12. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What would you call the Allied firebombing of Dresden towards the end of the second world war?
    Or the atom bomb on Nagasaki?
     
  13. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Depends on if sufficient warning was given, because that would dictate whether it was the civilians or the infrastructure itself associated with the war effort, that was the intended target. Otherwise those things are all terrorism, does that shock you!? Would you prefer annihilation? Does the label matter when your talking about killing men, women, and children of all ages and disablement no matter their involvement, support or otherwise for either side of the war. There is no prettying it up in reality, no excuses which justify it. That was the past though, we have to learn from mistakes made by all involved.
     
  14. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do know that in the War on Japan, the attack on Pearl, was the first step in getting America involved in the War, Japan stated, We have awakened a sleeping Giant.

    The U.S. rounded up many Japanese citizens and placed them in camps as prisoners of War under poor circumstances.
    The U.S. bombed major parts of Japan with Incendiary bombs killing mostly civilians and factories and rail lines.
    The U.S. dropped little boy and fat-man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the death tolls extended over many years as radiation related deaths and birth defects continued to claim victims nearly twenty years after the nuclear detonations.

    It is important to note, the U.S. did not just drop those nuclear devices without first considering the vast destruction that would occur, the amount of lives that War with Japan would cost in a conventional war was compared to the then known effects of those nuclear devices and the decision was made to drop the bombs, this took quite some time to decide.

    Truly a point in history that will forever live in infamy.
     
  15. DZero

    DZero Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I would call that an act of terrorism from the U.S. When you say the U.S. first considered all the damage that occurred and took time to decide, are you saying that makes it justified?
    The 9/11 attacks was all planned out and took time of deciding.
     
  16. Sushisnake

    Sushisnake Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    And when. Last month's ally was fighting for freedom. This month, he's a terrorist killing his own people.
     
  17. Sushisnake

    Sushisnake Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I follow you and agree given the context you defined it in, but I also see Battle 3s point.

    If you're one of the unlucky millions living in a failed state, you have different groups fighting for the same spoils. It's not about repulsing invaders, it's about overpowering your fellow countrymen and taking over, though invasion may well have been the cause of the state's failure. It's civil war. Who's the freedom fighter and who's the terrorist depends on your allegiance. There will be civilian casualities on both (or all ) sides.

    That's where it gets interesting for the other countries - especially if they have any kind of social or financial interest in the place. Who do they back? Who do they label the freedom fighter and who the terrorist?

    We know they will go with the side best suited to their interests- politics is pragmatic and often poorly thought out, so we end up with a freedom fighter his countrymen may call a terrorist, a brutal, oppressive murderous dictator and/or theocrat.

    Then the alliance breaks down for whatever reason- usually financial- and our freedom fighter becomes a terrorist to the other country who used to be his ally and described him as a freedom fighter.

    And depressingly, a lot of the time his brutality towards his own people is no different now we call him a terrorist than it was when we called him a freedom fighter.

    Believe me, I like your invasion and insurgency example much more- it's honourable - but I don't see much honour in the past or present of the failed states experience.
     
  18. TortoiseDream

    TortoiseDream Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,651
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Right and wrong have got nothing to do with it.
     
  19. DZero

    DZero Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why?
    Do you reject objective morality?
     
  20. TortoiseDream

    TortoiseDream Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,651
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yes I do.
     
  21. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yea civil war is an interesting example, but I'd say they cease to be 'civilians', certainly not non-combatants anymore, and by becoming combatants are defined by their targeting, as described. But sure people can use whatever they like if it makes them feel better....
     
  22. OneLove21

    OneLove21 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It depends. Groups such as ISIS? YES. Yet, we also need to realize that terrorism isn't new especially in the manner of how it is committed and analyzed in today's context. It's been a common tactic used against regimes or systems that have been seen as corrupt, oppressive, brutal, and unfair. When all peaceful and nonviolent efforts have been exhausted, then what else is their to resort besides giving up and running?
     

Share This Page