I don't support Muslim terrorists. Not in the least. My son is serving in the Army in Afghanistan right now. I served in the Army as well. Muslim terrorists can go to hell. Having said that, the terrorists have declared war on the west. I can't fault them for doing that. I mainly fault our western leaders for not recognizing this, and taking the fight to the Muslims. So yes, terrorism can be justified.
There are all these freedom fighters that are considered terrorists.
For example Nelson Mandela, went against the government for equality
Martin Luther King Jr., went against the government for equality
Malcolm X, went against the government too
So now ask your selves who is really the terror, them or you?
Check out Terrorist by Lowkey
It is in my belief that muslims are the superior religion ever to be created on this earth. Muslims deserve the right to whomever person, organisation or country they please. I believe that those who oppose muslims are to be considered the TERRORISTS of this corrupt world we live in.
Muslim is love, Muslim is life,
Muslims 4 ever.
This may sound "foolish" to some people, but doesn't it make a nation "stronger"? Take September 11 for example. The United States has not had a glimse of real threat in the context of terrorism since, security has greatly improved, and people can work together and help others affected. That is my argument.
I'll use a simple statement. As a child your mother/father will tell you that if somebody hits you, you hit them back. But 10x harder so they they'll know not to do it again. That would make things more than even, resulting in a change that in some people's eyes is not necessary but it is effective in some other people's eyes.
Moral of the story: Malcolm X resorted to violent tactics and methods to bring about a political change, now even though he was no better than white supremacists at the time he still generated supported and influenced society.
Martin Luther King was considered a terrorist and without him most of us wouldn't be here. He was part of a terrorist group call Umkhonto We Sizwe and after a while he went to prison and the group got violent, but without it, there would be no multiculturalism today. Thanks.
Terrorists also have a mind, and they genuinely believe in a cause that they think is good. To achieve that goal, they will do whatever it takes to do it. True, it may result in civilian deaths and widespread destruction, but it is all for the greater good isn't it? For those who say its only bad, and that terrorists are evil people, think about it from another point of view. Don't be closed-minded, even if you think the other perspective is illegitimate!
"Terrorism is never justified and should never be accepted. No act of terrorism is ever justified, nor should it ever be accepted or tolerated. In cases of religion, it has become the weapon most commonly used - which is completely insane, since what "GOD" would command a person to kill someone (or a group of people), with no justifiable reasons or cause?"
Individuals and groups need to stop killing in the name of "GOD", and own up to the fact that they are committing "cowardly" acts of terrorism in the name of their own selfishness, greed and hatred."
Really? GOD! No one cares.
"No, stop it, they are evil. Lock all terrorists away, full stop. They are evil. How is it justified to take away someone else's family lives, damage a building, city and waste millions. It is pointless. How could the world be this cruel? Because of these terrorists, it also now scares people off planes and the underground. Lock these evil people away from hurting innocent families!" This is the real world honey!
Well, Nelson Mandela became a terrorist because he wanted black and white people to have equal rights. He wanted to save the oppressed. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, but is seen as a hero to many. If it wasn't for him fighting, black and white people may still be segregated.
If every other option has been exhausted, if the people are trying to put across a point to their government and their government just simply ignores them, then turning to terrorism to catch their attention and prove your point to them to me, is seen to me as a valid reason.
I do not even need to go in to an intellectual argument as to why insurrection/terrorism is reasonable, I can give a few quotes of our founding fathers and it will explain itself, here you go. :)
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette"
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
"Insurrection by means of guerrilla bands is the true method of warfare for all nations desirous of emancipating themselves from a foreign yoke. It is invincible, indestructible."
To explain my reasoning, I must give a definition of terrorism. Terrorism can be defined as an often violent act, that uses the threat and fear of violence to reach an often political goal. In a case such as Nelson Mandela's, or the Libyan rebels against Gadafi, violent methods were resorted to when peaceful methods were ignored. Their plight for freedom meant better lives for millions of people. Surely violent methods are justified if the outcome is peace, or improvement to people's lives? Resorting to violent means in protest against oppression isn't the same as planting a bomb and killing 1,000 people. So terrorism can be justified, but only if the outcome can be.
I define utilitarian as the belief that the greater good triumphs over the good of an individual. I define terrorism as an act of violence that elicits fear into the hearts of governments or citizens. I argue that sometimes terrorism is justified if it furthers the progress of humanity. An example of this would be the use of violence against government buildings in the time of occupation or oppression. Although the deaths of ordinary citizens may be an unfortunate consequence to these actions, they may bring an uprising among the citizens to take over an oppressive government. A modern example of this would be the ANC's targets of governmental buildings during South African Apartheid. Although several citizens were killed in the incidents, the ANC brought about change in the South African government and it led to more equal treatment of all citizens. From a utilitarian perspective, the well-being of millions of people was enhanced with the sacrifice of just a few people. As it should be noted, I'm not advocating terrorism to be decriminalized, I am saying that if you subscribe to a more utilitarian perspective, the lives of a few million outweigh the lives of a few.
although it is based on perspective, terrorism is only caused by a popular reason. The nature of people is not to kill for fun or for no reason. There is always a reason. The taliban, the revolutuion in egypt, al-quaeda, the h-bombing of Japan; all have a reason for terrorism, be it retaliation or doing the right thing against their own government by the people and for the people. though some groups have lost their touch in reasons why they are fighting, most are provoked.
Terrorism could be justified under the contence that we have left the laws we were suppose to uphold (the constitution) and have changed it into something it was not intended to do (let's say it cuts into religion or seperation of church and state). Not everything can be solved with peace and violence is usually the best way to insure the rules are upheld. I think a lot of things could be held by peace but sometimes you have to take on greater methods to achieve what you need to accomplish (Americans starting war with British over freedom was considered terrorism).
"Who gets labeled as a “terrorist”? All and only those who commit terrorist actions? Guess again. In fact, the answer depends on where you are and to whom you are listening. If you are tuned into the mainstream U.S. media, or into the various agencies of the U.S. government, or, for that matter, into the statements of virtually any government and their associated media, it quickly becomes apparent that the term ‘terrorism’ is ascribed selectively. When our political opponents commit acts such as those mentioned we readily label it ‘terrorism’ and the perpetrators ‘terrorists’, but if we or our allies engage in similar sorts of activity we use different terms, e.g., ‘retaliation’ or ‘counter-terrorism’ to describe the acts. If the agents are a sub-national group we approve of, then it is common to see ‘freedom-fighters’ used to describe them."
You are a fool if you think that every issue may be solved with peace and reason. The very reason the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms is for the people to be able to ceize our governmant back if need be. I'm assuming every one is saying no because they have replaced the term Al Queda in their dictionaries with terrorist. This is a holy war they have declared on us. We look down on their suicide bombing tactics but it's managed to put the most fear in americans since the cold war. Which if i were a tachtician i would say is a pretty good job for their budget and numbers up against the U.S. They fight for a cause they believe is right and are willing to sacrifice their lives for. those suicide bombers you look down on, are the brainwashed pawns convinced by their leaders that their enemies are the evil ones. Which we are all some what a victim of. My heart goes out to the families and victims of the 9/11 tragedy but America is only feeling sorry for its self, we're not the first people to be targeted for religous beliefs. We're in a 16 trillion dollar debt and continue to waste billions more on a war we can't afford for some thing as petty as what we believe to be our own justice. You will not find justice in war, nor revenge. The real question should be, "If your back was to the wall against members of the Al Queda and you had a bomb, would you then be the terrorist for blowing it up?"
This question is a tough one because it comes down to a matter of perspective. What is a terrorist? A terrorist is anyone that commits acts of violence that we do not agree with. Look at the Middle East. Amidst the poverty and hopelessness, it is easy to imagine why people might want to rise up. While I do not condone their aims, and more often their methods(seemingly senseless violence), I can sympathize with those that are under the thumbs of American-supported dictators. Watching what is happening in Egypt right now is a good example of this: the people are tired of living under an oppressive regime, and they know that America is at least somewhat responsible, so they are looking to enact change in their own country. The Egyptian government, I am sure, thinks of these people as terrorists, and yet the movement has proven to be a mostly non-violent one. That is, until the government unleashed their own thugs. Those thugs in my mind are the true terrorists.
Yes, terrorism can be justified as there are not always other ways of freedom. Robin hood would be considered a terrorist by the rich but a hero by the poor, this is a classic example of the one person being viewed in different terms that could be classified a terrorist
In most cases terrorism can be linked to lack of economic development. Also many terrorists are from areas where people have endured extreme violence and injustice. If you have watched your parents and siblings murdered, if you have seen your wife or sister raped and tortured, if you have seen your kid starving to death, would you still want to react peacefully? If the only chance you or your children have to live a decent life, on the land your ancestors have lived, is by violence wouldn't you do it? If you believe passionately in something and that strong belief is one the thing you live for, what would you do when someone threatens it? Most of us would have done the same thing the terrorists did if we were in their situation. So yes it is justified in some circumstances and if we want to fight terrorism we should try to change those circumstances rather than trying to put all terrorists behind bars.
It all depends on the actual meaning of terrorism....
If you think that terrorism is the act of using violence in order to achieve a political or religious aim, then i believe terrorism can be justified. According to this definition, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist.... Many would not agree- this proves that under some conditions such as if the outcome is positive, violence used is at its least and is the last resort, i think then terrroism can be justified.
If any government acts in such a way, that the human rights are infringed, then it is justifiable for anyone to stand up against those who believe the government is acting right.
This, of course, has multiple points of view, but considering the fact that there are the same basic rights for people all over the world, good and evil should be considered a fact by most of us.
On the other hand, it depends on what terrorism means. For us, it is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.", but this may not be considered evil or bad by those, who believe the governments in the Western world are not governing our countries in the right way. So it depends on your point of view, which is different for everyone.
Have you ever watched Eurovision?
Sit in front of the TV for 3-4 straight hours and listen to dribble produced by European states. It's mass hysteria gone made. States could tackle their own financial problems and concentrate on strengthening the global economy, rather than fund a 'song contest'.
If terrorism occurred at the Eurovision 'song contest', we'd all be better off.
During war times terrorism is a way to force an enemy to surrender. I support it if there is reason for it such as when the U.S. used atomic bombs, but in the case of 9/11 were the U.S. had done nothing to provoke an attack it is wrong. So it really depends on the situation.
Hi I'm 14 and this is my opinion on terrorism. It depends on how you define terrorism. Nelson Mandela’s case has shown me that not every terrorist fights to terrorize people. Moreover, philosopher’s views have shown me that even historians have different views, and made me agree to one aspect of philosophy (Consequentialism). Because of this I have chosen that terrorism can be justified, depending on the consequence, and the result. This refers back to Consequentialism and Mandela’s case. In front of most, a crime, terrorism has no true reason behind it. But yet we ask ourselves, don’t we kill people of different race, have we not killed for no reason, terrorism might be cruel, and futile, but is it as bad as we make it out to be?
Some times people are controlled by black mail or other forms of force causing them to give in to things unthinkable by a normal persons mind or by anyone sane. So in some points it can be proved to be innocent and not intentionally which should be the only way to be proven innocent.
Today's cultural heroes are yesterday's "Terrorists" Nelson Mandela was classified as a "Domestic Terrorist" by the Apartheid government long before becoming the President of South Africa.
With that in mind, there are inexcusable acts of terror more often than justified ones. While overthrowing a government led by the minority of people may be considered just, as well as terrorism, randomly attacking people without cause is not just.
One of the key problems in this debate is that religion is far too often dragged into it, which provides a sort of Morality "get of out jail free" card. Those perpetrating such acts no longer have to justify it, as in their mind, they are "Cleansing the impure" or "Slaying the heretics".
Terrorism is a long standing tool used by many governments throughout history, with the first coined usage of it dates back to the French Revolution. The French government enlisted "irregular soldiers" to kill civilians, rape women and burn homes. Years before that, there were people such as Alexander the Great, whom was victorious largely due to his ability to strike terror into his enemies, also known as terrorism.
As far as terrorism being defined, I personally define it (Roughly) as "Any act which targets the masses, either through killing of civilians, public officials or media manipulation in an attempt to incite political change"
I'd say that's better than the result from the UN's 69th General Assembly (1st/2nd Meeting) which was "Unable to define" the word.
If you look first at the definition of terrorism it tells you that it's an act of violence OR intimidation for political reasons. I believe if there is a failure to represent a people and neglect of the people, a party has a right to intimidate the current government or its officials to make the necessary changes for national stability. I am , however, against pointless and/or selfish acts of terrorism. The middle east being a perfect example.
Syria is a great example, where the government is oppressing its people. So what is the solution?? To stand up and fight back, this how ever will give them the name of Terrorists as they are attacking and killing soldiers?? Or are they doing so only because they are being oppressed and killed. To the people of Syria the real terrorists are the soldiers of Syria as they are killing innocent people.
So you tell me..... Who the real terrorists are, the rebels that have been formed through civilians that were and still are being oppressed and fighting for their rights......
The Syrian government who started the oppressing the civilians and are fighting those who joined rebel forces so that they might be free from this government which wont stop oppressing??
There is no way of saying its never justified, since the there is no one person who can be the judge of that. In addition there is no set rules and regulations relating to morals.. The world is a big place even if the majority of population are against it there will be always someone for it.
Yes in our society we grew up learning that hurting someone for info or even for fun is absolutely wrong. Every time that topic was brought when we were growing up was that torturing was flat out BAD. Now, forget everything you new about what torturing is, and picture growing up and learning from multiple sources (i.E. Parents, teacher, news, political, and authority figures) that it isn't a bad thing. That it is a way to get info or a way to treat people who don't respect our religion.(sort of using Muslim in a way) they never had the knowledge of the negative side of it. They might not look at everyone as worthy people to live. In some societies only people of your religion deserve to live. Think of the example of when African Americans were first introduced, we thought of them as "not human" or "different". People of that time grew up believing that African Americans are not the same as them. At the time they did not know that they WERE the same as us, they were just raised to believe that they weren't. That does not make it anymore true or false, it just what your society taught you to believe. You are not born with any opinions or judgments you are taught and compelled to believe what your society believes.
So yes our society frowns upon torture but that is what we were raised to believe. In some societies torture is not frowned upon and so they were raised believing that it was not bad. And yes in every society there are the radicals who push their societies standard to the max but that happens in every society.
In this context wrong and right are complete opinions; if you ask, (lets just say everyone speaks English but the rest of their culture and way of life remain the same) "what 3 + 3 =?S" to anyone in the world it will always be 6, no matter who u ask. Another example on the topic of terrorism u could ask, "did a group of people(terrorists in our societies eyes) ever crash a plane into the twin towers?" then the answer would always be yes no matter who asked or who answered. But if you ask was it "insane" or the "wrong"/"right" thing to do then you will get multiple perspectives on the point depending on who answered, making it an OPINION.
There are not "Right or "wrong" opinions or even "more right" or "more wrong" opinions. -all opinions are equal is a FACT-. An opinion is better then the other is a PERSPECTIVE.
My point in writing all this is to show you that whether torture "is" justified or "not" is A COMPLETE OPINION. Every culture looks at torture in different ways. Some may believe similar things to another but in the end it all depends on the society you grew up in.
If there are governments that cow the public into fear and silence through the systematic use of terror, terrorism could be used as a last resort to awaken the public. Terrorism might be the only way to awaken the public as the non-violent revolutions could be easily crushed by such despotic government. Think of it as the last resort that stemmed from the support of the populace that caused the rise to power of such government and from the inaction of the populace once that government had successfully risen to power. Violence or non-violence, war or peace, whatever the method, unless it is done for freedom, it is acceptable and it must be done. Besides, which is more legitimate than the other? Terrorism or terrorism being conducted by the state? Is terrorism being conducted by the state legitimate to the conscience of the people?
Terrorism could have a greater purpose in this world. If there are governments, specifically despotic governments that cow the public into fear and silence through systematic use of terror, then terrorism could be used to fight the oppression. Terrorism might be the only resort to awaken the public that might have supported the rise to power of these governments that promote secure futures at the cost of civil liberties. It might awaken the public from their inaction that led to the theft of their civil liberties. Besides, how could a person conduct peaceful revolts when the government would easily dispatch of him with a gun just for his dissent? And another question stemming from the previous statements, which is more legitimate: terrorism or terrorism practised by the state? Is state terrorism legitimate to the conscience of the citizens? Of course, everyone is expected to protect and defend freedom from anyone trying to seize it. Violence or non-violence, war or peace, whatever the method, unless it is for freedom, it is acceptable and it must be done.
Terrorism is defined as using terror and violence to achieve a goal. It often involves the killing of civilians but not always. If the greater good of terrorism is to gain freedom or stop an out of control government then of corse it can be justified. There are greater goods in this world that are worth killing for. Sometimes violence is a necessary evil.
Terrorism is a topic which people like to throw around at other people to whom they are "afraid of". E.G. A terrorist (defined by a patriotic, cheeseburger eating American) could be a Middle Eastern person. But Terrorism is used by every single system of government with a force. They use this force to control the population, make us scared of the consequences and the holder of that force, the definition of Terrorism is literally the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Therefore, your local police force: Terrorists.
OK, so there might never be a perfect world in the future but I am positive that if we made peace with other countries, controlled weapons, and decided on weather people could come in to America or leave America. Stay positive on that it will happen instead of saying that it won't happen.
Terrorism is a topic which people like to throw around at other people to whom they are "afraid of". E.G. A terrorist (defined by a patriotic, cheeseburger eating American) could be a Middle Eastern person. But Terrorism is used by every single system of government with a force. They use this force to control the population, make us scared of the consequences and the holder of that force, the definition of Terrorism is literally the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Therefore, your local police force: Terrorists.
Let's get the ball rolling. 'No-one asks the winner if they lied' - Adolf Hitler.
Angry at me yet for supporting Hitler? It gets better.
The USA for ages has been monitoring every single thing you do. Imagine a security camera on your entire life. It seems that our entire lives are based around the fact that the USA are the good guys. They aren't. CIA operations. Black Operations. Operation Red Clover. Haven't heard of the last one? You should have. You're part of it. The ultimate way to watch every single person on planet Earth. All Internet usage. Whether you go left or right, you still end up in the slaughterhouse. That's the illusion of freedom. America is the slaughterhouse. You are the cow.
So, is terrorism justified?
Of course it is. Your own government you elected allows it to happen.
So, before you make outrageous assumptions that terrorism is something that happens in Asia,
Notice that it's a lot closer to home.
Of course terrorism can be justified. Everything is simply a matter of perspective. We as Westerners say terrorism is wrong but we do support it. Wasn't the US supporting and justifying terrorists when it trained local militants to overthrow the recognized communist party in Cuba. Were we not justifying terrorist when we turned a blind eye to the Pakistani government's support of terrorism in India. Simply because the Indians had close relations with Russia. Wasn't terrorism justified when with the help of America the mujaheddin (precursors to the Taliban) fight the Russians and supplying them with weapons that the war. As you can see in all those cases terrorism was justified because it benefited us and because we used different labels. We called the Taliban freedom fighters when they were fighting the Russians. We threatened India with war if they retaliated against terrorists coming from Pakistan. As I hope you can clearly see most of us have supported terrorist but have rapped them up before in pretty words like freedom fighters or heroes against communists.
Well of course it can be justified under any circumstance! You resort to terrorism when you feel depressed, when you are under stress/oppression and other cruel stuff. Its because some people feel terrorism/murdering/assassinating is the only way you can get out of it. But of course not you have too look at things the positive way! Terrorism is cowardice, just because you feel depressed/youre under stress/don't have the basic necessities of life? Thats just stupid. Your views, ideologies or points can be said in a non-violent way.
I think on people's perception, everyone can be considered a terrorist depending on what side of the line they are on. I believe without certain figures throughout history, the country or the world would not be where it is today. Terrorism does not mean something bad 100% of the time.
Sometimes you need to use bombs to get someone to stop doing something. Deaths at Auschwitz could have been prevented if it had been bombed. Only under those circumstances can terrorist attacks can be justified. In all other cases terrorist attacks are not justified because they kill innocent people .
We may be thinking that Americans are so amazing trying to defend our country and people by invading other countries and protecting our "freedom" but really we're being worse than they are. We are killing people in their homeland just like they killed ours so really we're no better than they are. We may seem like heroes but really hero is a bit of a synonym for terrorist sometimes.
Terrorism is used by countries that are trying to win a war without sufficient weapons to do much ground fighting. The point of the war is to win at all costs. If 'terrorism' is necessary, then they will do it. Yes, it kills innocent civilians in the process, but that is what breaks a country down.
Terrorism is not just suicide vests and plane hijacks, it is the use of violence or intimidation to achieve a political aim, this means that resistance fighters during the second world war were branded terrorists by the occupying Nazi regime, they did not go around intending to kill civilians, they intended to make life as hard as possible for the Nazi's so that they could not carry out their work, I'm pretty sure we all know what they did, also there is a phrase for this subject: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", so the matter of weather someone is branded as a terrorist is a matter of opinion. The terrorism that we hear of now is not all there is to terrorism, they decide to kill civilians where as to be a terrorist one does not have to kill anything at all, just simply cause disruption to the occupying government. Basically, it's death or destruction for a political purpose, simple, yet potentially confusing.
There can be two sides of a person. One person can interpret it as a really evil person, who bombs for no reason. The other side could be that the terrorist is ensuring freedom. Maybe the terrorist is suffering under a tyrant or it is being obstructed by practicing their religion. It all depends on what the terrorist does. If the terrorist is bombing for fun, and for no reason, then obviously, it is wrong. If he/she is forced to do so, then they have to. It's like being trapped in a cage/prison.
The french resistance were classed as 'terrorists' but all they were doing were fighting for their country and trying to win it back. Is that really a bad thing? I definitely don't agree with organisations such as Al-Qaeda and the IRA but you can't just focus on them. You need to look at 'Any Circumstance' which involves things such as the French Resistance.
Terrorism is strongly opposed and it doesn't make sense why people want to be controlling of families and they want to kill and control the world. It is a religious battle and they disagree with the rest of the world wanting to vary in its beliefs. I think it can be resolved if they open up their eyes and finally see what is right and stop killing people and realize what matters and that is world peace.
In war, you have to win, no matter how you do it. If you had financial difficulties and no profound weapon or money, than the most effective way to stop or at least give your opponent maximum damage, which is done by terrorism, a military tactics. When u.s nuked Japan, not third of the u.s's population criticized it yet it killed more innocent civilians than terrorism ever had. Most western population believe that terrorism is evil. However, the term terrorist is a mere term used by western countries to demonize their public enemy
If there is ever a time that is so bad that it calls for a revolution, acts committed for the cause fighting worth should not be considered terrorism, but an act of freedom fighting. During times of revolution, acts committed that could be considered terrorism are necessary for the success of the revolution, and I support using terror to earn rights and win, as long as the cause is true. ¡Viva la revolucion!
Under any circumstance killing people, innocent people is morally wrong no matter what the consequences are. In Nelson Mandela's case, I am unsure. I think that he is a freedom fighter but one mans freedom fighter is another man terrorist you see, even though the consequences where there it did not do
Those who think that terrorists are freedom fighters may be right. Although people fail to take in the fact that if freedom fighters commit acts of terror, then in this case they are terrorists. Freedom fighters fight for freedom, terrorists commit acts of terror. Without a doubt, no question about it.
They kill kid’s women no matter if they agree or disagree with the cause. Also the person that said that the British considered us terrorists no they did not we went to war with the country not with the people of their country soldier fought soldier.
It depends on the situation and events preceding the terrorist acts of violence to determine whether it's freedom fighting or terrorism. Even though our nation was founded with "terrorism" it is still no excuse to say that you can just go out and reek havoc because you would like to.
Lock all terrorists away,full stop. They are evil. How is it justified to take away someone else's family lives, damage a building, city and waste millions. It is pointless. How could the world be this cruel? Because of these terrorists, it also now scares people off planes and the underground. Lock these evil people away from hurting innocent families!
To assign guilt by association to innocent men, women and children and destroy them rather than to face a stronger opponent is the ultimate act of cowardice. No matter what twisted logic is used as an excuse, it can never be justified.
Using the fear of death and destruction to motivate people to do what you want is the most ridiculous and unjustifiable form of persuasion the world has ever known. Unfortunately terrorism has been around for millennia, and will be around for as long as humanity persists on Earth. Waving a gun in someone's face and telling them to do something will motivate them to do it in most cases, but it will quickly devolve into something much worse. Terrorism begets terrorism and those who act upon terroristic desires are likely to see it come back upon them.
There is no need for terrorism because things can be settled in many different ways. Instead of blowing up a country because they did something wrong or because you don't like the country, you could use other methods - something as simple as coming to an agreement or just not associating with the place you have a problem with. This could be done over meetings and in various other ways. You don't always have to resort to violence, no matter the circumstances.
There is no reason for terrorism by any means. In a perfect world this should be handled with peace. However, there is no way in which harming other human beings is justified, in my opinion.
As the term "Terrorism" refers to vilolence that aims at political, religional goals" It cannot be justified. Also, the justifiable terrorists are pursuing great good acheivements such as collapse of dictatorship; however, it results in great harm and bad concequences. They are just concequentalists.
No act of terrorism is ever justified, nor should it ever be accepted or tolerated. In cases of religion, it has become the weapon most commonly used - which is completely insane, since what "GOD" would command a person to kill someone (or a group of people), with non justifiable reasons or cause.
Individuals and groups need to stop killing in the name of "GOD", and own up to the fact that they are committing "cowardly" acts of terrorism in the name of their own selfishness, greed and hatred.
There is a difference between fighting for ones country and terrorism. When one fights in a war, only soldiers are purposefully killed. However, in terrorism, people kill innocent people to get attention for their cause. This is wrong. There for, terrorism will never be justified in any case.
Everyday people are being maltreated and tortured in many countries. They should protest this, even in certain cases they should fight for their rights. But killing and terrorizing general people is a crime, an unforgivable crime against humanity. Terrorism in every form should be prevented.
Terrorism is a way to spread fear. Strapping bombs on women and children and mentally retarded people is just plain cowardly. It is a horrible way for people to live when they have to be constantly on guard against terrorists. We saw the damage that they did in this country. Besides the murders, they made a good try at destroying us financially. Our so-called torture is nothing compared to what they have done to captives.
Terrorist acts against the USA and its allies have been a part of daily life since the 70's. To date the USA and its allies have not succumb to any of the terrorist demands, and have in fact instituted a "no negotiation" policy with terrorist. The simple fact that terrorism has yet to change anything, proves it is not effective.
Terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstance because it kills innocent people who have little impact on political change. Terrorism reduces humanity to the level of barbarianism and animalistic behavior that cannot be dealt with in any position of serious negotiation. The response is to promote further violence by both sides and result in even more killing.
I don't think there could ever be a good reason for why someone would attack and kill innocent people. I don't care what their religion or beliefs tell them there should still be a thought that comes into their mind that it isn't the right thing to do no matter what.
Terrorism is to hurt and kill and scare a group of people so this should not be justified at any time. Most of the people that are killed by terrorism are innocent bystanders who did nothing but try to live their life and was in the wrong place when a terrorist decided to attack which should never be justified under any circumstances.
Diplomatic means of dealing with disagreements or other disputes is always better than terrorism. If two groups have a disagreement, acts of terrorism will not solve anything. Terrorism only makes the problem worse as both groups of people will likely get involved in a conflict that will cost lives and money that could be used for better causes. If the disagreeing parties were to just meet and have a civilized talk about there differences, a non-violent solution would likely be reached.
Terrorism is not justified in any circumstance because it's about fear. The name itself says that it's about striking terror into others, not informing or persuading. Forcing people to do what you want by fear will backfire in the end and just create a never-ending cycle of violence. It's not about having things go your way but to be a bully.
To me there is no justification for terrorism or for putting a person or a group of people into a state of terror. This is cruelty in its highest form, and to commit these acts in the name of some belief is completely hypocritical. These random acts of violence which terrorists commit have put the entire world into a heightened state of fear and suspicion.
We must not confuse freedom fighters and terrorists. Sometimes, violence can be the only way of resistance under certain circumstances. However, direction of the violence should be on the power holder, not innocent civilians. Assassination may be justified since it targets specific figures who may harm others in some way, but terrorism can never be done so as it causes sacrifice of the innocents.
Terroism can not be justified as it involves the slaughter and injury of innocent people. Under whatever act, civilians have no responsibility of the acts for terroism. Terrorism involves injuring a character mentally and physically. Those whom say terrorism does not mean slaughter, the physical and emotional pain the civilans are in are way beyond death. For those whom agree that terrosim can be justified, you do not understand the pain the citizens are in. You are not the victim to terrosim. You are being cruel if you believe INNOCENT PEOPLE should take resonsibility for the acts for others. Why should they?
Never will terrorism or any form of torturing be justifiable to absolutely anyone. United States or not. We are all human beings with different beliefs and upbringings but one thing we all know is LOVE, FAMILY and GOD. But this still does not stop or come to an end. "If they do it open mouths everyone is in shock but if we do it...Its done for a reason....I don't agree I think this is a poor excuse we use in order to try and justify it. Allah, Jihad, God all about love so why are we practicing such hate and evil...People the devil is a liar, don't allow him to win, we are only hurting ourselves by killing each other in entertainment for him. God Bless All!
Love is the solution of most of the things. So why there is a need to adopt terrorism. It destroys mature, human life and also creates hatred among the people. It creates great fear in heart of pepole. Sometimes people have to think 100 a times for going out of house because of terrorism
The main problem here seems to be that people don't recognise the difference between terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
Guerrilla warfare is the tactics used by a smaller weaker military force to chip away and demoralise a superior one as used by S.W.A.P.O against the apartheid government in the 1970s and 80s and by the Vietcong against the USA during the 70s. These were legitimate acts of military resistance against a superior military enemy.
Terrorism on the other hand is the deliberate use of violence against military and most importantly CIVILIAN targets such as the Sep 11th attacks in New york . These are illegitimate acts of terrorism and violence against civilians.
Just like the title says, Terorism just cannot be justified no mater how you think about it. The injuries or deaths sustained by civilians during terrorist attacks such as in 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are unneeded and unethical and those responsible need a bullet. My view on terrorism- a bunch of scumbags trying to kill other people as a hobby. The end.
Killing for a purpose or killing without one means the same-killing!
Taking the life of somebody is never justified,especially when they have done nothing wrong.
Moreover,actions should be taken to eradicate terrorism and not to justify it.
Good people never support the idea of killing inocent people.
I hope u wnt support that too
These people have had many effects on people around the world. None of them have been good effects, no one deserves to go through something like terrorism. That's why it can Never Be Morally Justified. In the recent Boston Bombings and in the infamous 9/11 attacks no one came out free, even passers by who witnessed the attack can never have a positive outlook on such a negative thing.
It cannot be the justification for endless demands for secession on the basis of ethnic or religious particularity. To bomb and maim innocent citizens and then claim the right to self-determination as a justification is a travesty. For example, can bullying be justified? I doubt it. I am strongly opposed to terrorism -- the murder of innocent civilians is abhorrent. The same thing occurs in war, and that is also abhorrent.
So when it comes time to convict a TRUE terrorist it seems watered down calling him a terrorist. The definition of Terrorist once meant that you had a political agenda. I see it thrown around for other things all the time lately, things that we would once just call crimes. Let's stop letting the REAL terrorists tear our society apart. That was their plan all along anyway and we have fallen right into their trap.
Allah in the Quran has declared Hell as the place for those, even Muslims, who slay or harass any person, even a non-Muslim, without any legitimate cause for it. Except for Jihad i.E. Fighting in the way of those who cause harm to Muslims, no person can be harmed, and what is happening today is by no way Jihad. This is because Jihad is fought only aggressive non-Muslims, in the presence of a Muslim ruler and so that Muslim faith is not harmed. Those who are killed or injured nowadays due to terrorism are innocent civilians and some are Muslims! These so-called Jihadists are actually modern hypocrites who aim to lead the global Muslim community against the West, by capitalizing on the misunderstandings between the Muslim World and the Western Nations.
Terrorism can’t be morally justified, that will never imply that is good. It can be provoked for the right reasons, but innocent people will get hurt during the attack. The ideal world as the word describes it is an idealization is not going to happen and it is not what is realistic. Ideally we should live in a world without violence. In reality violence follows us everywhere. That harm that is being inflicted to another person that attempt of killing someone is called terrorism.
We are all aware of the terrorism that surrounds us, those people who kill women, children, and men in order to make a statement. They are killing innocent people to get what they want by provoking fear and building up a threat. “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Terrorism can be produced by the right or wrong intentions. Wrong intention will be considerate as a tragic and terrible event that lead into the death of innocent people, and that event was caused for wrong reasons. If that event is caused for right reasons it probably will still be unjustified because there are other ways to get what you want without having to kill innocent people during the process.
Terrorism is unjustifiable even if a terrorist group is trying to prove a point. To kill people for a purpose is unmoral and unrealistic for people today. Terrorism is unjustifiable because would any sane person use violence and harm civilians to get their point across. There is no need to take this sort of action and there are other diplomatic moves which a party can use to make publicity on their policies
The Boston bombing a good supporter on why terrorism is never ok. When a terrorist strikes all I can think of is why are they doing this and what motive do they have? I honestly don't believe that terrorism is right others might say differently but I don't, how would you like it if some one destroyed your house and everything you love, just think about that. By the way this is coming from a 17 year old student
There would be bombs going off all the time and everyone would be helpless to stop it. Why would you want to bring this into the world? Unless you yourselves are terrorists. So ask yourselves this: would you really encourage these terrorists to murder innocent civilians or be locked up and stopped for good?
When is it ever okay to accuse an entire race of attacking your country and using that as a "justified" reason for occupying and terrorizing their home for over a decade? If you take everything away from the facts, the patriotism, the emotions that 9/11 stirs up, and pretend that it was another nation occupying our land for a decade, without a doubt that would considered terrorism. Who's hurt the most in all of any government's decision to terrorize? We do.
Terrorism and Civil Uprisings are two different things. Civil uprisings have their place. But terrorism hurts innocent people, not the people in power. And violent resolutions should only be last resort. Better yet, everyone practice the golden rule "do unto others" and violence would never be necessary. Tell me how killing an 8 year old boy watching a race furthers anyones cause?
People shouldn't be taking control of things that if they are meant to be they would be. It is cowardly and results in so many consequences for other people who might not even agree with the acts or reasoning behind the acts that you are committing. Killing and destruction is morally wrong.
Freedom fighters and terrorists do the exact same thing.. They both fight and say that it was something they believed in and that it was for a good cause. It is hard to justify whether the cause was good bad or bad, let alone being able to tell if terrorism can be justified or not. -.-
If terrorist activity was justified then why would Bin Laden was killed for his acts ? Not in any case, it is justified. Mass shooting and killing bombs will ultimately generate fear among the individuals, everyone has to run for their lives .. Before choosing the nation, they have to choose their life at first. What about their family.. ? They have to live to sustain their family.
When US dropped the atom bomb in Japan, the env. was too fearful. A mother was crying out , "I cant save u son, I am not brave to go through the fire and save you. Please forgive me. I'm a bad mother "
What does this say ? Everyone will surrender for their lives. The chain of violence never ends !
If one group terrorizes the other, the other may drop a missile and so on ..
World War 3 eh ?
Even though we have faced all these acts of terror in the homelands as well as overseas, we only blame the big acts of people of other nationalities. I believe, even though we may not see it, that terror is an act that is also done by Americans. The violent acts of people will always progress, especially with the problems we are facing currently. There is absolutely nobody cold-hearted enough to completely stop every wrong they see, mainly because they would soon find out that the more force you use, the more others will adapt.
No religion, or civilized society can make any justification regarding terrorism. Terrorism is a brain-sickness of those people who commit it and want to outburst what they have inside them. Use of power isn't solution of any problem, even terrorists should be dealt with the manners other than the use of power.
Why would causing pure terror to a group of innocent people be justifiable? Terrorists are causing unnecessary terror and often unnecessary deaths. They need to find a more peaceful way of expressing their opinions like the rest of us have to. In my opinion, killing someone for your own opinion will never be justifiable.
Terrorism is terrorism it can never be ok no matter who is doing what. People get killed hurt and cant be justified in anyway. And the reasons behind it a even worse. Killing innocent people can and never will get a point across. Resorting to such measures should never occur unless you're alright with someone doing the same thing to you.
Terrorism can not be justified by any circumstances. For those who support the type of organizations that commit this type of terrible acts, I say wake up. Life worth it, with so many advances in technology and society we should be able to make process in diplomacy and ways to solve the conflict without the use of weapons or the death of innocent people. The act of committing violence understanding the consequences should not and will not be ever justified.
Terrorism as many know is an act of violence intimidation and persuasion it is used to obtain. Telling people that terrorism can be justified is like saying we're allowing it to happen as long as there is reason, but the only reason terrorism includes is killing of the innocent, boston marathon bombing is a perfect example, what was the guys intention to destroy the event and bomb it in the first place?
Terrorists attack the general public whereas insurgents deal directly with government forces. The reason why I'm mentioning insurgency is because I think that it is important. Terrorists attack completely innocent people for something that their government or ethnic group has done which can never be justified. It would be just like killing someone because their mate said some horrible things about you. Insurgency however, I feel, is justified as they do not attack innocent people but attack armies and opposing forces. Many do this to protect their homelands and loving, caring families. And even though the Terrorists have very good reasons usually it still does not justify the need less killing.
i just seen this post for my senior research project, i dont think in any circumstances it should be justified. It wouldn't be justified in other countries if we went and crashed into there biggest building killing 3000 people, whats the difference here. sure thats a little dramatic, but you can never over empower a topic like that, its stupid to even think you could justify something like this. the difference between us bombing them and them bombing us, is that we're bombing them, not ourselves, and theyre bombing us and not theirselves. its war, its a dirty bloody war, and theres nothing anyone can really, and honestly as a civilian do to stop it except join it.
What may seem like a justifiable act to someone, may be viewed as an act of terrorism to another. It's all based on perception and where you stand with your beliefs. America talks about their war on terrorism when we seem to be the country that has caused the most terror throughout history. The dropping of the Atomic bomb is a perfect example.
How could terrorism ever be justified? The use of violence to intimidate and scare people, to take completely innocent lives away and leave families and friends distraught and heartbroken. To destroy buildings and public places for no reason whatsoever and cause millions of pounds worth of damage to society? I don't understand how that could EVER be justified. It's a completely evil, unnecessary and immoral way of acting. Terrorists clearly have no consideration of the feelings of the citizens that share their environment and therefore are disrespectful. Terrorism is wrong and always will be. Just think of 9/11, or even imagine losing someone close to you because of a terrorist act; and then tell me terrorism can be justified.
Terrorism is such an evil thing, so it can never be justified. If we want to be a civilized nation, then we have to make sure we are living civilized lives. It might be tempting to want to terrorize certain groups of people, but that would not be the moral thing to do.
Terrorism can never be justified. There is no reason for somebody, anybody to want to destroy a country, or a building. They destroy the lives of so many people when they do. Nothing good comes from it, not even for the terrorist.
Terrorism can't be justified ever, because its the absolute wrong way to handle things and, for the most part, is pure evil. Taking justice into your own hands is never justified, but, especially when involving a terrorist threat, it can't be a good thing. Terrorists are always bad people acting on misguided information.
Terrorism is a bane of human existence. Terrorism comes in many forms that are not so easy to spot. There should be no excuse for terrorism. If people want to fight wars, I think we should revisit history. Terrorism just evokes fear and hatred, even if it is on an Eco-terrorist level. It is just a dangerous practice.
I do not think that I can even conjure up any reason in which terrorism would be acceptable. The use of violence and intimidation is barbaric and only serves to further this epidemic and cycle of violence. Threats, torture, killing, intimidation or any means used by any individual or group of individuals serves no purpose, in my opinion. There is no incidence that I can imagine that would warrant the use of abuse for political gain or to obtain information. It is cruel and should not be tolerated or promoted.
Terrorism is something evil people and organizations do and there is no time or place for it. The only time it is appropriate to attack civilians is when there is a war going on between two countries. I do not view this as terrorism, it is simply war. Terrorism is something done without a greater motive.
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence against civilians in order to influence policy. So, it is never justified. Insurgents, freedom fighters, and rebels may morally destroy the oppressing state and its enforcers by using guerrilla tactics. But, getting civilians involved is inexcusable.