Amazon.com Widgets

Is terrorism an act that can be justified when fighting for national sovereignty?

  • Terrorism is an act that can be justified when fighting for national sovereignty.

    Terrorism is necessary when people have no other options. It is a way to make a statement against an oppressive government. It can let the international community know about problems in underrepresented parts of the world. Terrorism is a major movement in the 21st century and it is not going away anytime soon.

  • Democracy was built on terrorism

    Anyone who does not agree with this statement is to narrowminded to look back into the history of the United States. The founding fathers really were a group of radicals. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. If you have an issue with whatever independent state you reside in and feel the need to incite a revolution through terrorism to gain enough power for the common man to obtain your basic human necessities it's your basic right to do so.

  • terrorism can be justified

    Terrorism can be justified when fighting for national sovereignty under narrow circumstances when applied against occupation forces that would inflict even more death. Terrorism can be justified under narrow circumstances. Evil is wrong. Killing people is wrong because it is evil, but killing people to reduce the number of people killed overall can be justified. For example, if occupying forces are killed, and those forces might have killed far more people alive than if killed, then terrorism can be justified.

  • The U.S. was founded upon acts that the British considered to be terrorism, so the justification depends on the side the terrorist is fighting on.

    When you look at nearly all of history, countries are founded upon war. As the saying goes, "all is fair in love and war." Of course, I don't condone terrorism. I don't condone any form of violence, as it is the breakdown of civil humanity. However, I do understand how it can be justified in the context of war.

    Posted by: EBaker
  • Terrorism for national sovereignty is justified. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

    Some people whom are desperate enough will resort to anything to achieve what they want. Terrorism is one of those things. Terrorism is not a tangible thing, it's a tactic. There are no rules in war and there surely isn't when it comes to fighting for your own country's sovereignty.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • Terrorism can be justified when fighting for national sovereignty under narrow circumstances when applied against occupation forces that would inflict even more death.

    Terrorism can be justified under narrow circumstances. Evil is wrong. Killing people is wrong because it is evil, but killing people to reduce the number of people killed overall can be justified. For example, if occupying forces are killed, and those forces might have killed far more people alive than if killed, then terrorism can be justified.

    Posted by: 54mP5KryPto
  • Terrorism is never justified

    Terrorism is when a group targets civilians in order to force groups in power to give into their demands. The only variable that this question changes is whether or not the acts of terrorism can be justified as long as they are for national sovereignty. The answer is 'no'. Terrorism is wrong regardless of its stated goal because it specifically targets peoples who are uninterested/unrelated to the actual conflict (e.g. civilians), and it is never morally justified to target innocents.

  • I oppose terrorism in all it's forms - I grew up in London in the 90s.

    I grew up in London in the 90s. Some of you won't understand the relevancy of that to a Terrorism debate - and you are the people who don't know about the IRA. The IRA was - or is - a terrorist group who bombed London throughout many years to force the UK to release Northern Ireland. Their goal may be good, or it may not be - but the people they hurt were all innocent. If they hurt one person who had any say in what happened to them, it was by accident. Their targets were women, children, elderly and anyone else they could hurt. It was dangerous to go shopping in the 90s. Other Terrorists are no different - they hurt those who have no effect on their cause in the hopes of forcing those in higher power to do their bidding. It isn't acceptable.

    Posted by: DuaneAir
  • Terrorism is never an acceptable option regardless of patriotic sentiments.

    Terrorism is designed specifically to hurt, maim or incite fear in people. People can never change their thoughts, feeling or ideas when fear is the primary motivation. They must come to the changes through thought and debate. Changes made on fear are not lasting, true changes. True lasting change is accomplished through understanding.

    Posted by: Csabaxpart
  • I oppose the justification of terrorism when fighting for national sovereignty.

    Terrorism is generally not a valid reason to solve any particular problem. Although some gains may be made by a shock to the situation, in the long run it does not result in a solution. In today's world, terrorism has such a negative connotation, that states using it will suffer future consequences.

    Posted by: Purf3ctRenc
  • Terrorism cannot be justified when fighting for national sovereignty because terrorism hurts others and often is disconnected from a cause.

    Terrorism gets people noticed but by hurting other people who are often civilians and cannot influence government, government actions, or nations. Terrorist groups often start out with a cause but after a while they cause get less and less important and instead becomes more about harming people to garner attention. There are other methods to achieve national sovereignty which are connected more with the cause that would not harm others, and in particular not harm civilians. Inflicting terror on others, since that is the nature of terrorism, does not help nor can be seen as fighting for national sovereignty.

    Posted by: Sk8rChri
  • Terrorism, like war, is not the answer to ANYTHING.

    I do not understand why anyone finds terrorism to be a justifiable act by any means possible. Words have the power to go a long way in life, however, people are uneducated in their abilities to reason, to discuss, and to make decisions TOGETHER. We live in a world where everyone's first instinct is to have everything go their own way, without thinking about the consequences. As long as people get what they WANT, its ok. Going back to Terrorism, it is a way to make a statement, to show that a group of people is there and isn't going away. Why must innocent people have their lives put at risk for a "statement?" And for those people who fight back...why not provide education to those who don't understand what they are doing? Rather than killing each other, maybe people could try working together, especially at a time where there are numerous problems within the world...but of course, that would require us to live in a perfect world...

    Posted by: LeticiaR
  • Terrorism can never be justified even when a nation is fighting for national sovereignty.

    The act of terrorism is an awful act of causing terror on some one or another nation. There is no justification to this act. Everyone should live peaceably with all mankind. Those that perform terrorism should be pursued by the law and the world would be a much better place with a lack of terrorists.

    Posted by: taihenraion
  • Terrorism can not be justified when fighting for national sovereignty

    Terrorism can not be justified when fighting for national sovereignty, because terrorism is too heinous to be justified. Terrorism puts too may innocent people at risk for it be justifiable. It is an act which spares no means and no one, and is far too barbaric for there to be a good reason for it. National sovereignty needs to be achieved in some more reasonable manner, rather than willfully targeting innocent people.

  • The average civilian doesn't care much about other nations' national sovereignty, so it is not fair to attack them as a basis for it.

    Terrorism does not attack the people that oppose another group's national sovereignty. There are the people in power that oppose others' national sovereignty. But, the civilians under those authorities generally could care less about the national sovereignty of people outside their own country. The people in power preventing national sovereignty should be the ones that are being pressured with violent opposition, not the civilians.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • I do not condone terrorism, as it is nothing more than a higher form of bullying.

    What's to prove? Every terrorist attack has been an attack to incite fear in the population. Bullies always do such things to incite fear in their victims, mainly to make them feel better about themselves. With that in mind, terrorism is basically a way to bully a lot of people, all at once, and nothing more.

    Posted by: KindErik

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.