Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

[aaronleland]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It is - that's why it makes a heated and controversial discussion. The IRA is a good example.

Here's another good example. Terrorist scum.

ENOUGH with the fucking Star Wars!!!

This thread actually made me think of that scene.

 

[montelatici]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Exactly, I've had numerous debates about the IRA, some are adamant they were terrorists but to me they were freedom fighters, the colonists and the Indians are good examples as well

All guerilla fighters are not terrorists...but I think the ira functioned as terrorists.

I have to disagree, the IRA's goal was a free and united Ireland away from England. The mainly targeted the British army, constabulary, institutions and economic targets, much as a regular army would. Were there civilian deaths? Of course but there is in any war or conflict

While necessary to force Britain to change their one-sided policy which favored the Protestants, the IRA bombed Victoria Station, Harrod's Department store and many pubs on the British mainland. The British and the Protestants often targeted Catholic civilians and Catholic civilian targets too. So, I am not sure that people with limited resources that are trying to free themselves of especially foreign domination can be classified as terrorists. The ANC bombers of shopping centers in South Africa are now considered national heroes. Because they won. Menachem Begin was arrested for terrorism and became an Israeli PM and national hero. Because they won. The Algerians committed many atrocities against French civilians, now they are considered national heroes, especially the young women that placed bombs in the areas where the French live. This is a poignant video regarding these women, Algerians that could pass for French women.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm reminded of a quote, "when injustice becomes law resistance becomes a duty".

 

[aaronleland]

The winners write history. Some guy gets his head hacked off in the desert, and it's terrorism. A country drops an A-bomb onto a civilian population, and it's called victory.

Are you suggesting we cannot make moral distinctions? If the consensus is overwhelmingly siding on one definition in any given case, then I think that should suffice.

What Islam is doing, exporting murder and terror in any foreign land they choose, that would be terrorism. Stopping a major war started by German and Japanese aggression by use of a large weapon --- that is not terrorism. We can take this case by case and in most cases come to a consensus opinion. Or were you thinking we should back off trying to destroy Islamic terrorism because they may have a moral angle to their evil?

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The winners write history. Some guy gets his head hacked off in the desert, and it's terrorism. A country drops an A-bomb onto a civilian population, and it's called victory.

Are you suggesting we cannot make moral distinctions? If the consensus is overwhelmingly siding on one definition in any given case, then I think that should suffice.

What Islam is doing, exporting murder and terror in any foreign land they choose, that would be terrorism. Stopping a major war started by German and Japanese aggression by use of a large weapon --- that is not terrorism. We can take this case by case and in most cases come to a consensus opinion. Or were you thinking we should back off trying to destroy Islamic terrorism because they may have a moral angle to their evil?

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Good point, WWII, was Nazi ideology good or bad?

 

[aaronleland]

The winners write history. Some guy gets his head hacked off in the desert, and it's terrorism. A country drops an A-bomb onto a civilian population, and it's called victory.

Are you suggesting we cannot make moral distinctions? If the consensus is overwhelmingly siding on one definition in any given case, then I think that should suffice.

What Islam is doing, exporting murder and terror in any foreign land they choose, that would be terrorism. Stopping a major war started by German and Japanese aggression by use of a large weapon --- that is not terrorism. We can take this case by case and in most cases come to a consensus opinion. Or were you thinking we should back off trying to destroy Islamic terrorism because they may have a moral angle to their evil?

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Good point, WWII, was Nazi ideology good or bad?

It always depends on where you're standing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The winners write history. Some guy gets his head hacked off in the desert, and it's terrorism. A country drops an A-bomb onto a civilian population, and it's called victory.

Are you suggesting we cannot make moral distinctions? If the consensus is overwhelmingly siding on one definition in any given case, then I think that should suffice.

What Islam is doing, exporting murder and terror in any foreign land they choose, that would be terrorism. Stopping a major war started by German and Japanese aggression by use of a large weapon --- that is not terrorism. We can take this case by case and in most cases come to a consensus opinion. Or were you thinking we should back off trying to destroy Islamic terrorism because they may have a moral angle to their evil?

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Good point, WWII, was Nazi ideology good or bad?

It always depends on where you're standing.

Exactly and w/o condoning Nazi ideology not all of it was bad and evil, they had some good points, their problem was they let evil in and it took over.

 

[Coyote]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Exactly, I've had numerous debates about the IRA, some are adamant they were terrorists but to me they were freedom fighters, the colonists and the Indians are good examples as well

All guerilla fighters are not terrorists...but I think the ira functioned as terrorists.

I have to disagree, the IRA's goal was a free and united Ireland away from England. The mainly targeted the British army, constabulary, institutions and economic targets, much as a regular army would. Were there civilian deaths? Of course but there is in any war or conflict

It's the tactics, not the motive. I thought they chose soft targets...maybe I'm wrong.

I see what differentiates terrorism from other types of warfare is tactics - the motive can be great, and the cause just but the tactics aren't. It's fuzzy though.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I thought it would be interesting to start a topic on this when I read this post in another thread:

DGS49, et al,

Like the Secretary-General says, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." Not even this disparity in equipment and technological superior arms. THAT IS AN INVALID EXCUSE. But it is one that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian uses quite frequently.

First - what IS terrorism? There are so many definitions but they have some commonality best expressed in the UN declaration below:


UN General Assembly Resolutions

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:[43]


"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"


Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."[44]​

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are many clear cut examples of terrorism and many less clear or easily "justified" examples...

The cold-blooded murder of an entire Israeli family in Itmar down to the smallest infant, while they slept in their beds: Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping

The cold blooded fire bombing of a Palestinian family's home while they slept that left a toddler dead, the two parents so severely wounded they died soon after, and a 6 yr old still fighting for his life: Duma arson attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A host of knife attacks against Israeli civilians, of which this is just one: Palestinian girls shot after stabbing elderly man with scissors

Israeli's stone a school bus full of Palestinian girls: Settlers pelt Palestinian school buses

The collective punishment of innocent civilians:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...e-punishment-is-revenge-plain-and-simple.html

A Palestinian woman attacks a guard at a check point: Terror of checkpoint knife attack: Palestinian woman pulls out knife & stabs Israeli guard

The abduction and burning alive of a palestinian teen: Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Price Tag movement that has been responsible for vandalism, destruction of property and livelyhood, and assaults on civilians: Price tag policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with the statement: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." and define terrorism as acts of violence, or intimidation against civilians for the purpose of a political, ideological, religious or cultural goal.

The only example that I would not consider terrorism is attacking a military target.

The issue is neither what constitutes terrorism nor whether or not terrorism is ever justified – the issue is the refusal on the part of both Israel and the Palestinians to acknowledge the fact that each indeed engages in terrorism, terrorism just as wrong, just as reprehensible, and just as much a human rights violation; and that both Israel and the Palestinians refuse to stop their criminal acts of terror.

 

[aaronleland]

The winners write history. Some guy gets his head hacked off in the desert, and it's terrorism. A country drops an A-bomb onto a civilian population, and it's called victory.

Are you suggesting we cannot make moral distinctions? If the consensus is overwhelmingly siding on one definition in any given case, then I think that should suffice.

What Islam is doing, exporting murder and terror in any foreign land they choose, that would be terrorism. Stopping a major war started by German and Japanese aggression by use of a large weapon --- that is not terrorism. We can take this case by case and in most cases come to a consensus opinion. Or were you thinking we should back off trying to destroy Islamic terrorism because they may have a moral angle to their evil?

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Good point, WWII, was Nazi ideology good or bad?

It always depends on where you're standing.

Exactly and w/o condoning Nazi ideology not all of it was bad and evil, they had some good points, their problem was they let evil in and it took over.

Every government has ideas others would call evil. Hell, we have the largest prison population in the world, and we're still locking people up over parking fines. In my opinion that borders on evil.

 

[turzovka]

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Well I imagine if one cannot believe in God then then have limited their ability to reason or set up moral principles.

But as some godless human denizen, who is left to his own wiles --- I think there is enough history that has past where we can see all men are born with a rudimentary ability to reason and have a conscience. Human nature, if you will? Where we can see that bashing someone on the head for no reason at all we can call wrong or unjust. Not feeding a baby might be wrong. Stealing a man's possessions, wrong. Etc. So what is your point? You think those invading marauders in the 7th and 8th centuries who took over North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and upwards to Europe, then forced many of them to convert to Islam or die --- You think even a godless person cannot comprehend the immoral act in all that?

 

[ChrisL]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Well did we purposefully target innocent civilians? To me, that is what terrorism is. When innocent civilians are purposefully and intentionally targeted in order to make a "statement," whether that be political, social, religious, or whatever.

 

[ChrisL]

What's the difference between a "hate" crime and terrorism? Where would you draw the line between terrorism and a hate crime?

 

[ChrisL]

Hmm. I don't really consider vandalizing, or other such small time crimes to be acts of "terror." Those are simply ignorant bumpkins in most instances.

In order for it to be terrorism, it has to strike "terror" into your heart and that has to be the goal. Not some dumb bumpkin saying, "derrrr, I hate me some Muslims."

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Exactly, I've had numerous debates about the IRA, some are adamant they were terrorists but to me they were freedom fighters, the colonists and the Indians are good examples as well

All guerilla fighters are not terrorists...but I think the ira functioned as terrorists.

I have to disagree, the IRA's goal was a free and united Ireland away from England. The mainly targeted the British army, constabulary, institutions and economic targets, much as a regular army would. Were there civilian deaths? Of course but there is in any war or conflict

It's the tactics, not the motive. I thought they chose soft targets...maybe I'm wrong.

I see what differentiates terrorism from other types of warfare is tactics - the motive can be great, and the cause just but the tactics aren't. It's fuzzy though.

I'm reminded of another quote "sometimes the end justifies the means". In the early 90's the IRA conducted what was called the Warrington attacks, they were directed at economic targets, the first was detonated at a gas storage facility, the second at a mall type location, as much as I believe in what the IRA stood for the second Warrington bombing was wrong and done in poor judgement, it served no purpose other than to create fear and chaos. In my opinion the gas storage bombing was an economic target but the mall bombing was terrorism, it should have never happened

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why is it that carrying a bomb onto a bus is terrorism but dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment building not?

There is definitely a double standard.

 

[aaronleland]

Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times

It's a funny thing that can be debated for an eternity. We used guerrilla war tactics to defeat the British during the American Revolution, and history regards them as freedom fighters. You never hear the Natives Americans who attacked American settlers referred to as freedom fighters, do you?

Well did we purposefully target innocent civilians? To me, that is what terrorism is. When innocent civilians are purposefully and intentionally targeted in order to make a "statement," whether that be political, social, religious, or whatever.

In the case of the Native Americans, yes we did. In the case of the British most of their civilians lived thousands of miles away.

 

[montelatici]

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Well I imagine if one cannot believe in God then then have limited their ability to reason or set up moral principles.

But as some godless human denizen, who is left to his own wiles --- I think there is enough history that has past where we can see all men are born with a rudimentary ability to reason and have a conscience. Human nature, if you will? Where we can see that bashing someone on the head for no reason at all we can call wrong or unjust. Not feeding a baby might be wrong. Stealing a man's possessions, wrong. Etc. So what is your point? You think those invading marauders in the 7th and 8th centuries who took over North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and upwards to Europe, then forced many of them to convert to Islam or die --- You think even a godless person cannot comprehend the immoral act in all that?

Was the European invasion of the Americas and the forced conversions and subsequent genocide of the native americans terrorism?

 

[westwall]

I thought it would be interesting to start a topic on this when I read this post in another thread:

DGS49, et al,

Like the Secretary-General says, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." Not even this disparity in equipment and technological superior arms. THAT IS AN INVALID EXCUSE. But it is one that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian uses quite frequently.

First - what IS terrorism? There are so many definitions but they have some commonality best expressed in the UN declaration below:


UN General Assembly Resolutions

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:[43]


"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"


Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."[44]​

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are many clear cut examples of terrorism and many less clear or easily "justified" examples...

The cold-blooded murder of an entire Israeli family in Itmar down to the smallest infant, while they slept in their beds: Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping

The cold blooded fire bombing of a Palestinian family's home while they slept that left a toddler dead, the two parents so severely wounded they died soon after, and a 6 yr old still fighting for his life: Duma arson attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A host of knife attacks against Israeli civilians, of which this is just one: Palestinian girls shot after stabbing elderly man with scissors

Israeli's stone a school bus full of Palestinian girls: Settlers pelt Palestinian school buses

The collective punishment of innocent civilians:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...e-punishment-is-revenge-plain-and-simple.html

A Palestinian woman attacks a guard at a check point: Terror of checkpoint knife attack: Palestinian woman pulls out knife & stabs Israeli guard

The abduction and burning alive of a palestinian teen: Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Price Tag movement that has been responsible for vandalism, destruction of property and livelyhood, and assaults on civilians: Price tag policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with the statement: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." and define terrorism as acts of violence, or intimidation against civilians for the purpose of a political, ideological, religious or cultural goal.

The only example that I would not consider terrorism is attacking a military target.

I feel that the deliberate targeting of civilians is never justified. Ever. If you wish to make a point I have no problem with blowing up government buildings (so long as there is no one inside of course) and cars etc. But the second you start killing people I have a problem with that.

 

[westwall]

I just think it's an interesting subject to think about, and one that can never really be settled. Do good guys and bad guys really exist in war? What makes one group's ideology right and the other's wrong?

Well I imagine if one cannot believe in God then then have limited their ability to reason or set up moral principles.

But as some godless human denizen, who is left to his own wiles --- I think there is enough history that has past where we can see all men are born with a rudimentary ability to reason and have a conscience. Human nature, if you will? Where we can see that bashing someone on the head for no reason at all we can call wrong or unjust. Not feeding a baby might be wrong. Stealing a man's possessions, wrong. Etc. So what is your point? You think those invading marauders in the 7th and 8th centuries who took over North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and upwards to Europe, then forced many of them to convert to Islam or die --- You think even a godless person cannot comprehend the immoral act in all that?

Was the European invasion of the Americas and the forced conversions and subsequent genocide of the native americans terrorism?

No, it was conquest, and it was the norm three hundred years ago. Any attempt to compare the two time periods is stupid and disingenuous.