A topic that I thought was interesting was "Can terrorism be justified?". I believe that in certain cases it can. I think the problem is that terrorism is seen as a deadly act, when there are other forms of terrorism. Political leaders often define terrorism as murder, but from a hostile standpoint it is. Now with that said, can terrorism be the only form of political violence that can be justified? My problem is that violence by the states or in the states (when war is not declared) is seen as legitimate when it's not even fully justified. I guess what it really comes down to is how you view "right" or "good".
FEMA's definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom."
Now when Rosa Parks (Really old example, I know) sat at the back of the bus, was she committing terrorism? Was Martin Luther King Jr committing terrorism?
Not all terroristic acts are committed by those who wish to kill. Teachers can commit terrorism in students everyday, well more in a stipulative form. All the teacher has to say is "Your papers are due by tomorrow. If they are not turned in by the due date, you will receive an F." Now for people who really care about their grades, this surely would evoke a shock or form of terror, which would cause them to turn in the paper by said date. Then again, terrorism is a form of coercion.
It's not the best debate, but it's something I keep thinking about. Just a little something I thought of for FP.
Thoughts?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater
[QUOTE=Karskin;18068149]"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater[/QUOTE]
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -Declaration of Independence
depends wholly on the situation
Red Faction: Guerrilla
[QUOTE=iamgnome;18068225]depends wholly on the situation[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I guess so.
And video games? Really?
Terrorism can of course be justified. Because there's no universal good or evil. Meaning to some Terrorism is bad, while to others it's just. It's all a matter of subjectivity.
In the eyes of a terrorist, bringing our ideas of women having free rights and equality among men is like us seeing them making their women cover and have no rights
They think it's right
We think it's wrong
You can't justify it, it will always be terrible to one side and right to the other.
Let's say a terrorist bombs the white house. We all think "Oh shit fuck" And they think it's right because they are taking out the capitalist pigs
[QUOTE=Kamikaze;18068318]Terrorism can of course be justified. Because there's no universal good or evil. Meaning to some Terrorism is bad, while to others it's just. It's all a matter of subjectivity.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Problem is terrorism is universally condemned.
When the slaves in the Caribbean revolted against plantation owners, they were committing terrorism, but for personal freedom. To me, that doesn't sound bad.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
[QUOTE=Identity;18068347]Exactly. Problem is terrorism is universally condemned.
When the slaves in the Caribbean revolted against plantation owners, they were committing terrorism, but for personal freedom. To me, that doesn't sound bad.[/QUOTE]
Again, subjectivity. Some actions to an individual may not be considered terrorism, while the same action could be called terrorism by another.
Is justificable to commit genocide and murder to impose an ideal or a point of view of another culture?
Violence in itself is generally condemned. And since terrorism uses violence, it is condemned.
The idea of terrorism is to "create terror", hence the name.
Uhm, here's a definition of terrorism:
[b] terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)[/b]
Terrorism is never, [i]ever[/i] justified because the lives of innocent civilians are used to achieve goals.
[QUOTE=Poltergeist Three;18068466]
Terrorism is never, [i]ever[/i] justified because the lives of innocent civilians are used to achieve goals.[/QUOTE]
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bro
[QUOTE=KaIibos;18068517]Hiroshima and Nagasaki bro[/QUOTE]
not justified
But, if you want my personal idea behind whether it's justified, then here it is:
Terrorism is justified if you're personal liberties or safety is in danger, but these acts are only being committed against property. Not innocent civilian lives.
[QUOTE=Kamikaze;18068548]But, if you want my personal idea behind whether it's justified, then here it is:
Terrorism is justified if you're personal liberties or safety is in danger, but these acts are only being committed against property. Not innocent civilian lives.[/QUOTE]
Not justificable in my opinion.
Just because I have another point of view I should cause terror. Also, being commited only to property isn't justificable. Think about a 9/11 with no civilian losses: Would still be bad, no matter what
[QUOTE=OrDnAs;18068660]Not justificable in my opinion.
Just because I have another point of view I should cause terror. Also, being commited only to property isn't justificable. Think about a 9/11 with no civilian losses: Would still be bad, no matter what[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at. It's all subjectivity.
I don't mean I'd go out and commit terrorism. I still believe in direct action, just not violent direct action.
[QUOTE=Kamikaze;18068318]Terrorism can of course be justified. Because there's no universal good or evil. Meaning to some Terrorism is bad, while to others it's just. It's all a matter of subjectivity.[/QUOTE]
Yup.
It's just that the majority thinks it's unjustified, and I agree.
You've asked "Can terrorism be justified" but you havn't defined what YOU think terrorism is.
Tell us what you think it is, then we'll answer.
of course it can, just say god wills it
:downs:
hiroshima and nagasaki are justified because they were so rad.
one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
[QUOTE=Identity;18068101]FEMA's definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom."[/QUOTE]
Which means "in those cases where we define it as terrorism," making it a largely arbitrary term. It's pretty fucking laughable.
I don't even see why we need another "term" for violence, it's just a loophole to me. We already have murder and self-defense, the distinction is pretty clear to most (intelligent) people, and I think that's all we need. We don't even need the term "war" IMO, it's such a cowardly way to justify or criminalize respectively murder or self-defense on a mass scale. The only "grayzone" in war is that people get away with it in the fog of state ideology.
Anyway, back to topic, terrorism is justified when it is self-defense, it's murder when it's not. Simple as that. I'm not certain what caused (or didn't cause) 9/11, but certainly any "terrorist attacks" after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be fully justified, preferably with a "civilian" death count of little over a million.
Comparing Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks to mass murderers is fun.
Before the Revolutionary War, America had a terrorist organization called Sons and Daughters of Liberty.
[QUOTE=Poltergeist Three;18068466]Uhm, here's a definition of terrorism:
[b] terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)[/b]
Terrorism is never, [i]ever[/i] justified because the lives of innocent civilians are used to achieve goals.[/QUOTE]
By that definition, taxation is terrorism.
(But we still agree, taxation isn't OK either)
Even as self-defense, I don't think is justificable. I wouldn't cause terror on a population because I am "self-defending".
Terrorism to you is Fighting for their Beliefs/Families/Freedom to them.
Good and Bad are a point of view.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.