Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

Would you consider this terrorism?

  • Killing a civilian "enemy" family for a cause you consider justifiable.

  • Killing a civilian "enemy" family in revenge for something another member of that cultural group did

  • Terrorizing civilians through grafitti, vandalism, arson, religous desecration but taking no lives

  • A government destroying civilian homes in response to an attack by someone in that group

  • Attacking a military person for a cause you consider justifiable.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Apr 17, 2009
112,654
38,225
2,250
Canis Latrans
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.
 
Many called the Irish Republican Army terrorists, others called them freedom fighters. It's a thin line at times
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
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.
 
The other thing too is often it is the winners of a conflict or the prevailing power that gets to define what is "terrorism".

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.
 
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?
 
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
 
Terrorists intentionally choose soft targets and hide behind women and children.
 
This is one of the toughest questions I've seen on USMB.

Just WHAT is a terrorist? As someone posted, it's a group that fights against "The Establishment" and loses.

But, I think there can be a delineation. Someone or a group that attacks innocent people simply going about their business and defenseless is doing so just to "terrorize" then. The attack has no direct effect upon those in power in their well-guarded palaces.

A war is soldier against soldier.
 
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.
 
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.
starwars-485x327.jpg
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top