Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

[ChrisL]

It's only terrorism if they break the "rules of war" set forth by the Geneva convention. EASY answer. If you capture civilians, lock them in a cage and light them on fire or decapitate them, THAT is terrorism.

http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/...Conventions-and-1977-Additional-Protocols.pdf

 

[montelatici]

So, when the Algerians, Jews or the ANC bombed civilians it was terrorism. And, when the bombers became leaders of the country the terrorism helped create they become freedom fighters and national heroes, like Menachem Begin. Makes sense.

 

[Coyote]

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

Interesting distinction - I didn't think about economic targets. I guess also, a key thing is whether human lives are endangered. For example there are eco-terrorists that attack property but not human lives.

On the other hand actions that destroy property or livelyhood can also have the effect of terrorizing people.

 

[Anonymous1977]

Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

To me terrorism is taking an innocent life in order to further a religious or political cause and to me it is never justified.











-

 

[Coyote]

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

I think there is some overlap between the two but in general, a hate crime is specific to a person and has no political or ideological agenda. Terrorism can involve hate crimes but is done towards a specific end or goal.

 

[Coyote]

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."

I'm thinking vandalism such as arson - firebombing churches or synagogues or mosques even if empty or destroying a farmers olive trees would terrify a person.

 

[Coyote]

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

The invasion? No, not really. Forced conversions? Yes, I would say so. However, I do not think forced conversions were anywhere near the norm for the spread of Christianity in the New World or anywhere else. A number of historians concure that 8 -10 millions Aztecs converted within a 10 year period voluntarily after the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531. Something tells me God played a part. Even the Inquisition was not a matter of forced conversions. Nor were the Crusades, even though the soldiers got out of hand in their violence or plundering. It was not about convert or die.

They weren't for Islam either. Many conversions were voluntary - either it was because the religion appealed, or for political gain or to get out of paying a tax, or because the local rulers did.

 

[Coyote]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

I think you are the one doing most of the denying and being very selective what you respond to.

The Arab invasions were far worse, far more oppressive and despicable, imo and that of many others. I really do not understand the motives of some like you. It is not very difficult to find horrible sins amongst Christians and then use that to say there is no difference from that and a true evil force. I do not get your type? You are being purposefully evasive to the facts and blatant observations.

So, when the Algerians, Jews or the ANC bombed civilians it was terrorism. And, when the bombers became leaders of the country the terrorism helped create they become freedom fighters and national heroes, like Menachem Begin. Makes sense.

Yup. The winners get to choose the labels.

 

[koshergrl]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

I think you are the one doing most of the denying and being very selective what you respond to.

The Arab invasions were far worse, far more oppressive and despicable, imo and that of many others. I really do not understand the motives of some like you. It is not very difficult to find horrible sins amongst Christians and then use that to say there is no difference from that and a true evil force. I do not get your type? You are being purposefully evasive to the facts and blatant observations.

So, when the Algerians, Jews or the ANC bombed civilians it was terrorism. And, when the bombers became leaders of the country the terrorism helped create they become freedom fighters and national heroes, like Menachem Begin. Makes sense.

Yup. The winners get to choose the labels.

That's just what terrorists say.

If you target innocents in order to force others to come to heel, you're a terrorist.

 

[Coyote]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

I think you are the one doing most of the denying and being very selective what you respond to.

The Arab invasions were far worse, far more oppressive and despicable, imo and that of many others. I really do not understand the motives of some like you. It is not very difficult to find horrible sins amongst Christians and then use that to say there is no difference from that and a true evil force. I do not get your type? You are being purposefully evasive to the facts and blatant observations.

So, when the Algerians, Jews or the ANC bombed civilians it was terrorism. And, when the bombers became leaders of the country the terrorism helped create they become freedom fighters and national heroes, like Menachem Begin. Makes sense.

Yup. The winners get to choose the labels.

That's just what terrorists say.

If you target innocents in order to force others to come to heel, you're a terrorist.

Yup. Menacheb Begin was a terrorist.

 

[koshergrl]

Convert or die was a European policy vis-a-vis the native americans. The native americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Europeans. You denied the above and attempted to justify the actions of the Europeans implying that the actions of the Arabs in their invasions were somehow more despicable. That's the point.

I think you are the one doing most of the denying and being very selective what you respond to.

The Arab invasions were far worse, far more oppressive and despicable, imo and that of many others. I really do not understand the motives of some like you. It is not very difficult to find horrible sins amongst Christians and then use that to say there is no difference from that and a true evil force. I do not get your type? You are being purposefully evasive to the facts and blatant observations.

So, when the Algerians, Jews or the ANC bombed civilians it was terrorism. And, when the bombers became leaders of the country the terrorism helped create they become freedom fighters and national heroes, like Menachem Begin. Makes sense.

Yup. The winners get to choose the labels.

That's just what terrorists say.

If you target innocents in order to force others to come to heel, you're a terrorist.

Yup. Menacheb Begin was a terrorist.

To stop terrorists you go after their funding, clip their wings and kill them in their rat holes.

 

[Programmer]

Terrorism is a mindset. What do you do when you don't get what you want? Some people work harder, some people protest, some steal, some wage war. Some people - normally when there's no chance for their bullshit - choose the terror route.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Interesting distinction - I didn't think about economic targets. I guess also, a key thing is whether human lives are endangered. For example there are eco-terrorists that attack property but not human lives.

On the other hand actions that destroy property or livelyhood can also have the effect of terrorizing people.

Indeed, destroying shelter, water and food sources are considered acts of genocide.There are crossovers between terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide..

Terrorism is a bulldozer at my front door. ~ Palestinian poet

 

[james bond]

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

They had divisions between liberals and conservatives. I would say a conservative with a gun is a freedom fighter while a liberal with a gun is a terrorist.

 

[montelatici]

Terrorism is a mindset. What do you do when you don't get what you want? Some people work harder, some people protest, some steal, some wage war. Some people - normally when there's no chance for their bullshit - choose the terror route.

I am sure that if the non-whites in South Africa had worked harder the Afrikaners would have ended Apartheid.

 

[Two Thumbs]

terror is anything that causes fear.

terrorism is going after targets just to cause fear.

If blowing up a bus does nothing more than kill a few bystanders, but scares the shit out of people, that's terror.

Blowing up a bus full of soldiers is war.

gunning down people that threw you a baby shower at the Christmas party, is an act of terror
bobming an islamic leader at a wedding is war

 

[montelatici]

How about bombing a Jewish or Christian leader?

 

[Programmer]

Terrorism is a mindset. What do you do when you don't get what you want? Some people work harder, some people protest, some steal, some wage war. Some people - normally when there's no chance for their bullshit - choose the terror route.

I am sure that if the non-whites in South Africa had worked harder the Afrikaners would have ended Apartheid.

Apartheid shows terroristic desperation on the part of the minority government, but indeed, there were black terrorists, too. Most of the people involved responded through hard work, then some through protest. I should have also noted non-violent political means, too.

 

[montelatici]

Terrorism is a mindset. What do you do when you don't get what you want? Some people work harder, some people protest, some steal, some wage war. Some people - normally when there's no chance for their bullshit - choose the terror route.

I am sure that if the non-whites in South Africa had worked harder the Afrikaners would have ended Apartheid.

Apartheid shows terroristic desperation on the part of the minority government, but indeed, there were black terrorists, too. Most of the people involved responded through hard work, then some through protest. I should have also noted non-violent political means, too.

"we will have to reconsider our tactics. In my mind we are closing a chapter on this question of a non-violent policy." -

Nelson Mandela

See more at: uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) | South African History Online

 

[Programmer]

Terrorism is a mindset. What do you do when you don't get what you want? Some people work harder, some people protest, some steal, some wage war. Some people - normally when there's no chance for their bullshit - choose the terror route.

I am sure that if the non-whites in South Africa had worked harder the Afrikaners would have ended Apartheid.

Apartheid shows terroristic desperation on the part of the minority government, but indeed, there were black terrorists, too. Most of the people involved responded through hard work, then some through protest. I should have also noted non-violent political means, too.

"we will have to reconsider our tactics. In my mind we are closing a chapter on this question of a non-violent policy." -

Nelson Mandela

See more at: uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) | South African History Online

South Africa makes a great case study regarding the justifiability and effect of crossing that line into terrorist campaigning.

Don't forget that the Sharpeville massacre preceded your quote, eliminating the legitimacy the Afrikaner govt, globally. The Poko and MK response did the same to Mandela and the ANC. Was any of that constructive to the resolution, or did it extend the whole issue some 30 years?