Terrorism Ever Justified?

I've wondered for a long time if terrorism is ever justified ... I say the answer is no

What made me think long and hard about it is the circumstance of 'your side' being downtrodden and completely powerless except in this ability, to conduct terror. Only if you consider things from your own partisan view can you entertain the answer being 'yes' ... because a lot of people do decide 'yes' rather regularly

Anybody who is now out joining the demonstrations has decided terrorism can be justified. Some are just anti-Semitic, but a lot of these people are Americans without connection to the Middle East, students and so on, who have become quite disturbed by the plight of the Palestinians. It seems to me to take a lot of blindness for such people to join demonstrations and sign special statements while ignoring that terrorism. Many I think would say they are not anti-Semitic but are just anti-Israel.

You don't have to imagine what Jews, some Jews, might do in a reversed scenario. Menachem Begin, later Prime Minister, was part of a terrorist organization before Israel was created, and he was responsible for ordering " ... an attack on the British military and administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel ... resulting in the destruction of the building's southern wing, and 91 people, mostly British, Arabs, and Jews, were killed. "* At least the British considered him and the organization wanted terrorists, perhaps I've trod on controversial ground.

I say terrorism is never justified, but others decide otherwise all the time.

* Wikipedia

I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]

There's more than a few things to consider. Were you ever 18 years old? Were you ever wrong? Did you ever go with incorrect or false news reports then hear it was different than first reported?

After you eliminated those kinds of things then you figure out if someone is supporting terrorism.

Of course, I think it is a mistake to single out an ethnic or religious group and establish it as a nation state in the first place like Israel did. I wouldn't want the USA to be known as religious base for any religion. And I wouldn't want it to advertise itself as advertising to particular ethnic group over others. And it's not that I think the Arab states around them are any better if or when they do the same.

While I think getting rid of Putin or Kim Jong family would be at least a chance for a good change, I can't see blowing up or killing random people in their country in either place to do it. It makes no sense to me.

I would say unequivocally no, especially if we are talking about more direct acts (bombings, killings, etc....) (which is what most people mean when saying terrorism).

However, I would say it depends how loose you get with "terrorism" as there are many conflicting definitions. For example, somebody spreading secret leaflets in North Korea would be considered a terrorist by some definitions (as they would say it is an intimidation tactic to sow discord.)

I think the general inclination is to support "terrorists" when you oppose the entity that they are fighting and to be appalled when you support the entity that they are fighting. For example, most Americans would probably support (at least on principle) educational resistance in North Korea even if it would be their definition of terrorism. Lots of Americans (including the U.S. government) supported terrorists in Syria because they were fighting a brutal dictator (even though their tactics were far from honorable.) There are lots of gray areas.

It is easy to say "no" (which is probably the right answer), but the reality is we all support groups that at least one government considers a terror organization. I would say tactics matter.

I will use North Korea again as an easy example (because everyone agrees they are a corrupt state), if a group is using education to sow discontent in North Korea, I would say that is moral, but if a group is kidnapping North Korean women and raping them on video to provoke the Army, that is not moral (though both could be considered terrorism. -especially by local definitions-) Even the U.N. admits there is no uniform definition of terrorism, so terrorism can mean almost anything in any country.

Quote: Gandler

I would say unequivocally no, especially if we are talking about more direct acts (bombings, killings, etc....) (which is what most people mean when saying terrorism).

However, I would say it depends how loose you get with "terrorism" as there are many conflicting definitions. For example, somebody spreading secret leaflets in North Korea would be considered a terrorist by some definitions (as they would say it is an intimidation tactic to sow discord.)

I think the general inclination is to support "terrorists" when you oppose the entity that they are fighting and to be appalled when you support the entity that they are fighting. For example, most Americans would probably support (at least on principle) educational resistance in North Korea even if it would be their definition of terrorism. Lots of Americans (including the U.S. government) supported terrorists in Syria because they were fighting a brutal dictator (even though their tactics were far from honorable.) There are lots of gray areas.

It is easy to say "no" (which is probably the right answer), but the reality is we all support groups that at least one government considers a terror organization. I would say tactics matter.

I will use North Korea again as an easy example (because everyone agrees they are a corrupt state), if a group is using education to sow discontent in North Korea, I would say that is moral, but if a group is kidnapping North Korean women and raping them on video to provoke the Army, that is not moral (though both could be considered terrorism. -especially by local definitions-) Even the U.N. admits there is no uniform definition of terrorism, so terrorism can mean almost anything in any country.

Canadian truckers have been convicted of being terrorists for parking their trucks and honking their horns about mask mandates.

In the US you have convicted protestors for being terrorists for protesting at the capital.

For the left the definition of a terrorist is anyone they don't agree with. They believe in a Palestinian state thus no terror there.

To me the only gray area is militarily justified actions that are excessively brutal

I don't know about the other stuff like leaflets being terrorism. I don't care about North Korea thinking it is.

In my own mind, I think there are acts that you have to consider terror no matter if it is your own people doing it or not, maybe for a cause you love ... like murdering civilians just to kill people you hate, no military purpose there

Quote: odiousgambit

To me the only gray area is militarily justified actions that are excessively brutal

I don't know about the other stuff like leaflets being terrorism. I don't care about North Korea thinking it is.

In my own mind, I think there are acts that you have to consider terror no matter if it is your own people doing it or not, maybe for a cause you love ... like murdering civilians just to kill people you hate, no military purpose there

But, that is the point, the U.N. says terrorism is very locally defined, so to them that is terrorism. Every country has drastically different definitions. So there is an endless range of actions in various regions that can be considered terrorism if you recognize every government's definition equally.

Terrorism rarely has a military purpose (since it is often in opposition to the military.) Generally, the purpose is to simply cause harm to people you hate for political reasons (whether to grow your movement or simply for revenge.)

I would say hopefully nobody is defending murdering civilians (though recent days have shown this is not the case.)

Terrorism is sometimes appropriate.

For example, during the reign of the Nazis: acts of defiance would have been deemed terrorism but through the myopic eye of history we'd now justify them, e.g. resisting the extermination of millions of peoples, or sabotaging the production of Nazi super weapons.

Quote: missedhervee

Terrorism is sometimes appropriate.

For example, during the reign of the Nazis: acts of defiance would have been deemed terrorism but through the myopic eye of history we'd now justify them, e.g. resisting the extermination of millions of peoples, or sabotaging the production of Nazi super weapons.

I would distinguish attacking random German citizens vs. Nazi infrastructure even during that period. Not everyone was a Nazi supporter. You kill regular people when it’s unavoidable to hit an actual military or Nazi government target.

Quote: missedhervee

Terrorism is sometimes appropriate.

For example, during the reign of the Nazis: acts of defiance would have been deemed terrorism but through the myopic eye of history we'd now justify them, e.g. resisting the extermination of millions of peoples, or sabotaging the production of Nazi super weapons.

It would still depend on the tactics. If Polish people were kidnapping German women and filming raping them that would be wrong. If they were passing out educational leaflets warning of Nazi actions that would be right. Terrorism and resistance can mean (almost) anything, and regardless of who you are fighting there are some actions that are never justified.

Of course, to play Devil's Advocate, some would say, if brutalizing a handful of civilians, ends the war quicker and prevents the U.K. and U.S. from firebombing German cities even longer (where hundreds of thousands of civilians will die) is it really more immoral? But, the easy counter to this is that nobody knows if it will actually decrease the time at war, and it is still wrong in the moment.

Quote: Gandler

It would still depend on the tactics. If Polish people were kidnapping German women and filming raping them that would be wrong. If they were passing out educational leaflets warning of Nazi actions that would be right. Terrorism and resistance can mean (almost) anything, and regardless of who you are fighting there are some actions that are never justified.

Of course, to play Devil's Advocate, some would say, if brutalizing a handful of civilians, ends the war quicker and prevents the U.K. and U.S. from firebombing German cities even longer (where hundreds of thousands of civilians will die) is it really more immoral? But, the easy counter to this is that nobody knows if it will actually decrease the time at war, and it is still wrong in the moment.

You carefully didn't go to the using of atomic bombs in Japan. Terrorism? Yes No