The debate "Can terrorism be justified" was started by
November 4, 2015, 5:53 am.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Sosocratese posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments, supersheep2140 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Alex, Sosocratese, erikD9921, Apollo8 and 8 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Noob, supersheep2140, wayneSPEC, bigB, wmd, Nury, andrewkorman, AstroSpace and 7 visitors disagree.
Terrorism has always been a favorite word of the mighty. They can arbitrarily use it to instill to the people fear and the propaganda that these so called terrorists are always evil. But in a world that is oppressive, history is written by the winners. We hear about people as mighty revolutionaries or liberators because they have won. We hear people called insurgents because they have lost.
Remove the brandname. We call them terrorists, they call themselves people protecting their own skin. These are people who may have been deprived of natural rights. And now they think they have to go against the oppressor in order to achieve recognition. And how are they viewed? How do they speak in front of a crowd which neglects them? They go for radical approaches.
If you say their ways are wrong and that being at the bottom of the hill does not justify their only voice, then who was it that failed to include them into society?
Terrorism might be a direct response to the negligence of others. That in itself justifies its own irony.
moral absolutes have no place in this argument. if you want to see what moral absolutism looks like, you need only study the absolutist views of the 9/11 hijackers.
Could you demonstrate some cases where you would be able to consider it justified?
Of course it can be justified. You simply have to have a reason for committing terrorism in order to justify it... Now, whether or not terrorism is ever morally justifiable I guess that depends on whether or not you belive the nature of morality being objective or subjective, meaning that if you believe morality to be a set of absolute values that are unchanging with circumstance, then you may not be able to justify terrorism. If, however you believe that circumstances surrounding actions are the determining factors of right and wrong, then you could justify terrorism in certain cases.
the are probably hundreds of thousands of examples of armies targeting civilians. nuclear bombing of heroshima and Nagasaki, the bombing of Dresden, a week ago the Americans bombed a hospital in Iraq. targeting of civilians isn't supposed to happen, but modern militaries do it.
Terrorism is an act against civilians. Never in any case is there a way it is justified. It is called terrorism because it "instills terror." Wars are different from terrorism, in wars we don't attack civilians.
if the term had been used at the time the British would certainly have accused the American rebels of being terrorists. it is just a term to try to brand people as bad. there have been lots of subversive groups that are now heroes. it's mostly in your perspective. but intentionally going after civilian targets is a reprehensible thing to do.
I do agree that attacking the innocent is never the best option nor is a valid one at most, but what about for those which the said action become a by-product of their cause? That these terrorist acts are the manifestation of the ground people taking arms against an offender. What if these were people who, by some unfortunate event, are reprimanded as serial killers instead of defenders?
Attacks on military targets can certainly be justified, but attacking a civilian target with the intent of killing innocent people to cause fear is never a viable strategy.