Is it hypocritical to eradicate terrorism with violence?
Using force and violence, especially against civilians, to eradicate terrorism is a hypocritical national policy.
The United States has tried repeatedly to conquer the Middle East through its War on Terror in the misguided belief that violence will solve violence. Sadly, after hundreds of thousands of deaths, of both soldiers and civilians, Americans and Middle Easterners, peace is not any closer to the situation, nor are Americans any safer from terrorist acts.
Posted by: P3nrIinYes, it is hypocritical to eradicate terrorism with violence as then our methods will be the same as theirs, which makes them the same as us.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred but by love alone. So I think that violence is not the way to eradicate terrorism. Love, education, tolerance and trying to bring about a change in social conditions is a much more effective way to eradicate terrorism. If we stoop to what they are doing, it makes us no different from them and no good can come out of it.
Posted by: danoneenoThere are only so many terrorists. Killing them prevents them from killing us.
A vast majority of the population does not support terrorism. A majority of them never will. If terrorists are a fringe minority, then killing them is actually a proper use of violence. It prevents them from killing innocents. As the Sunni-Shiite and Shiite-Almadhi terrorism in the Middle East and Pakistan shows, terrorists will terrorize their local population and their own neighbors if there is not an external enemy. If killing the terrorists radicalizes the population, terror breeding terror, then Algeria's move toward peace in the past 20 years after executing their terrorists proves that killing ALL the terrorists ends the cycle of violence. Either all the terrorists are dead and cannot raise another generation to replace them or a few rounds of executions cull the population of that fringe minority that would commit terrorism. Like bombing Dresden to help end a World War killing tens of millions, killing a core of radicals saves far more lives, and all of those saved are innocent. Almost every religion allows for an act of violence in defense of life. Killing terrorists - who deliberately kill, maim, rape and massacre - is almost universally allowed.
Posted by: Pir4AndI oppose violence to stop violence because that just perpetuates it.
I believe that the best way to stop terrorism is to advocate the opposite approach to solving a problem. Perhaps teach people how to politely solve their disputes in a way that is productive instead of destructive. Practicing peace is the way to true resolution and true happiness between various groups of people. What harm could it do?
Posted by: EliseoGThe very act of terrorism is violent, and to try to eradicate it with violence undermines the thing abhorred.
The very act of terrorism is violent. While few people approve of terrorism, many feel that revenge would include violence. This concept is incorrect and hypocritical because it is lowering ourselves to the terrorists' level. We are no better than the terrorists themselves if we resort to violent measures in order to deal with the problem.
Posted by: B LoweIt's totally hypocritical to combat violence by more violence; it is self defeating.
I think it's hypocritical to try to get rid of violence by violent means. If there is no other way to deal with extremists, then freeze them out. Refuse to deal with them in any way. Isolate them. Ostracize them. But, don't torture them or try to 'fight fire with fire'. That is complete hypocrisy. If they perpetrate violent acts, capture them and make them stand trial and be meted out the appropriate punishment
Posted by: PinkMychIt is not hypocritical to eradicate terrorism with violence because violence is the only force that checks terrorism.
Generally violence in a society is not very favorable. However we must consider the circumstances when violence is used. Terrorists are ruthless killers with the ultimate aim of destroying a society. Their ideas are radical and it would not make sense to make a peace deal with them. Even though violence brings a lot of pain, it is necessary to deal with force against these ruthless enemies.
Posted by: N4rrGetYes
Check what 'hypocritical' means in the dictionary. :)
Posted by: spongebobUsing violence to stop terrorism is no better than using terrorism to change something; both are violent acts.
Terrorism is simply a label used when the opponent is using non-traditional tactics of war. The use of violence to stop this is extremely hypocritical because in the eyes of the people harmed by the violence of the more powerful country, these acts are also terrorism. The same actions that are referred to as fighting for freedom can easily be termed terrorism if the view just shifts slightly.
Posted by: 54IInferno
IS IT HYPOCRITICAL?
I basically do not think that it is truly possible to eradicate violence.....as India is a diverse country and it is obvious that it is surely going to have many causes for terrorism and the biggest cause of all is RELIGION......Religion tends people to fight against one another's religion to support them or in order to make others listen your opinions. Terrorists are always not in against if the civilians but in favor of them sometimes and they should be treated with the same violence as they do with innocent ones.
Posted by: AnonymousYou have to beat the bully!
Terrorists are bullies grown up. They are jealous of others success and attempt to use fear and violence to get attention or their views and beliefs across to others. The only way they will learn or at least be held at bay is for the aggression to be turned on them. They only strike on the weak, vulnerable or unsuspecting innocent because they are weak wessles and cowards. Once you pop em in the face they go crying back to their little holes, caves, mamas or where ever. Some closed minded people never learn unless you knock some sense into them, that is all!
Posted by: JoshclapTerrorism can be eradicated by using arms against them.
Terrorists are armed with sophisticated weapons. They use bombs and grenades, which can kill and hurt many innocent people. If they have to be stopped, then the forces have to have better arms and ammunition. No mercy should be shown towards those for whom there is no value for human life. If violent means are used against terrorists then they might reduce their misadventures because of fear.
Posted by: Sk8brdrSalomResponding to violence with violence is defense, not hypocrisy.
Many are of the opinion that you can not respond to violence with violence and that, to fight violence, you must find a non-violent means. In a perfect world, this would be true. In reality, refusing to fight terrorism with a violent response is impossible. The terrorist is willing to die to accomplish their goal. In many cases, the terrorist wants to die to accomplish their goal. At that point, talk or avoidance is not possible. There are only two ways to deal with terrorism: either give in entirely and invite more terrorism, or eliminate it entirely and discourage its use.
Posted by: KnownEvanAlthough it is not the best "solution," the use of violence to eradicate terrorism is often the ONLY course available to those against whom the terrorism is aimed.
The international community has been unable to agree on a definition of terrorism. This should indicate the complexity of this subject. It is all too easy and all too common for any leader, any group, or any individual to label another individual or group "terrorist." All it takes is for a "them" and "us" situation to arise where the interests and agenda of "them" does not coincide with the interests and agenda of "us," whoever they may be.
However, when "terrorists" use violence against ANYONE, we are obviously not sufficiently matured as a species to have discovered, invented or developed a better way to stop them than to reciprocate with equal violence, ineffective though this may be.
If we wish to eliminate terrorism, we must face the root causes of it. Some of these causes we know: inequality of opportunity, unequal access to resources, and feelings of powerlessness.
America can stand as a template for the world: 5% of our population controls 90% of our wealth. Globally, a few industrialized nations control 90% of our wealth and power. Until we develop the wisdom to know how to resolve these problems, it seems violence is our only tool to protect ourselves against "terrorists."Posted by: CI3IikeViolence is a broad term.
Terrorism is at the extreme end of on the spectrum of evil. Violence and Love are the only ways to eradicate terrorism. To exhibit ruthless violence towards individuals who willingly engage in terrorism and to exhibit Love to those enthralled by terrorism are effective means of eliminating terrorism over time and are by no means hypocritical.
Violence is a broad term. To exhibit violence towards terrorism is a logical reaction by a nation or group of people. It is a passionate effort to neutralize terrorism.Posted by: oledukeIs it hypocritical? No,
but it might not be the best way to go about it. Terrorism is strongly linked with poverty and religious fundamentalism. Wipe out either (preferably both) and people are much less likely to turn to this sort of thing. Of course there will always be lone nutjobs out there, but organized, effective terrorism relies on a constant stream of new recruits - mostly unemployed, angry, religious young men.
Posted by: KaliPacifism is not an effective tool in fighting violent terrorism.
Non-violent behavior works in a culture where individuals are valued. Ghandi was a great proponent of non-violence. Sadly, he was murdered because some of the people he was dealing with did not value individualism. India has probably had more success with non-violence to affect governmental change than any other country in the world. They still endure terrorist attacks.
Posted by: SixCristobalIs Self-Defense With Violence Hypocritical in Home Invasion?
Violence is OK if it's for defense. However, the wanton and unaccountable way in which it is being used with the drone strikes puts NON-terrorists at risk as well. Many young children have been killed in the drone strikes. The sickest thing is that the military will tell the media X number of "militants" killed even if part of the head count are young children, disabled people, or the elderly who clearly weren't terrorists.
Drone strikes have their place, but 1. There needs to be accountability to make sure they are only used to stop immanent threats. AND 2. The United States does not own the entire world. We need to respect the sovereignty of other countries. If it's a threat to the United States then ultimately we do have to defend ourselves, but first we should ask the sovereign state to take care of the terrorist.Posted by: MasturDbtorThis would be like saying that killing someone with a gun in self defense is hypocritical if they attack you with a gun.
Terrorism and violence are not the same thing. Violence is something that is going to be necessary to root out that portion of society that is terroristic and evil in nature. To say that we should end terrorism with peace is like saying we should make the world wet without water, it is something that simply cannot be done. They have to be torn out of their safe places, their hiding holes, their homes and all other places in which they live and either given the opportunity to commit to peace or die.
Posted by: MariaRNo, it is not hypocritical to try to eliminate terrorism with violence, because that is the only thing that the terrorists understand.
I do not believe that it is hypocritical to fight terrorism with violence. The only language that terrorists understand is violence. We cannot simply sit back and not fight against such a strong enemy whose purpose is to eliminate us. Although violence should only be used as a last resort, if it is necessary to protect our country and others, I believe that we have to fight back in the only way that these terrorists understand.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyIt is not hypocritical to use violence to eradicate terrorism as there is a clear difference between using violence against innocent civilians and using violence against those who would carry out such acts.
Violence is used by both terrorists and those who fight terrorists but to equate the two by arguing that all violence is equally bad is absurd. Terrorists use violence against innocent civilians, causing murder and mayhem in order to strike terror into populations. Those who use violence against terrorists are doing so only because they have to, and in order to prevent more violent attacks. Therefore it is absolutely not hypocritical to use violence against terrorists.
Posted by: EminentBennett93If terrorists fight us, we fight back.
Since terrorists want to fight us we have to fight back with violence to stop them from attempting to take us over and make us slaves. Most people do not want to be Muslim, but the terrorists will force us. If they do take us over, we will be infidels for the rest of our lives.
Posted by: AnonymousAlthough it may seem hypocritical, many violent people will only respond to violence.
Some people are ingrained with the thought that violence is the only way to go. If you try to reason with these types of people, you will not have any success. If you show them a violent side, then you will get the desired result, because that is the type of thing they are used to.
Posted by: StevyDemonNo It's Not
This is because in using violence, you could stop the terrorism happening again, but if it did happen again then I would call it hypocritical. If it actually worked, them you would be doing a good thing because you would be stopping even more violence from taking place.
-Thank YouPosted by: Anonymous