What Would Happen To You If You Try To Justify Terrorism

Can terrorism ever be justified?

Big thing is - is that yes or no? You decide and then you have to argue it. In law school (I am not an attorney anymore - hung it up) we would be given one side or the other and have to argue it. So big thing is to make good arguments and perhaps do research to show.

Best to define terrorism. Could it be that the rebellion of America in the Revolution would be determined as terrorism? I don't know the answer to that, but you might have to decide based upon the definition of terrorism. We had the Boston Tea Party - is that terrorism?

If you look at it as being against innocent citizens then might not be justified. We have peaceful means to protest, but what if we were occupied by a foreign army and could not exercise any rights of protest without being killed? Might we be right in attacking and bombing, etc? I think of the Red October - I think that was the m ovie - with Patrick Swayze. They were freedom fighters. Are they terrorists? Is terrorism justified in the face of terrorism? Evidently Bush and Cheney felt so when they abused badly Muslims they confined in Guantanamo Bay and al Abu Garib (or however that prison was spelled).. To tortue someone for information is terrorism - is that ever justified? Some say yes. I feel that it may not be appropriate when you have a country with laws and chaos does not exist. Terrorism is creating chaos and if there is chaos, then it might be justified to survive. However, where there are legitimate means to redress wrongs, I would tend to think that it is not justified.

But your project is really deciding which way you want to argue and then stating your arguments and examples and focus on the conclusion and any proof you have.

I think you have an assignment at school and want someone else to do your thinking for you and your research. Won't happen. You have to decide that for yourself and then look at examples that prove your point and argue it. No one is going to intensely research and do your homework.

Good luck and good try.

Can terrorism ever be justified?

As a purely academic exercise, there are a couple of tacks you can take to argue this position:

The first is that it depends on how you define 'terrorism.' If, you define 'terrorism' as the pursuit of a political or social ends by non-military personnel through the application of force against civilian, government, or military targets, then I think you could argue that justified terrorism is a notion which is completely consistant with the American experience. For example, under this definition, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and thereafter forcefully pursued their independence from the King would have been guilty of terrorism. They oversaw a guerilla campaign against their natural sovereign and clearly believed that what they were doing was a treasonable offence as evidenced by the line in the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Nevertheless, they also spoke to the beief that in some situations, insurrection (terrorism) is mandated:

"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."

They knew that what they were doing was treasonous but acknowledged it as a practical and necessary solution to despotim.

The other way in which one can make a case that terrorism is legitimized in some situations is through historical eventuality. The theory is new and a little complex, but it basically states that terrorism becomes legitimized in a democracy when the political agendas of those who conduct terrorist campaigns become more popular than the agendas of those who hold power. In particular, political scientists point to the recent successes of Hamas in Palestinan elections. For a while, the policywonks were saying that Hamas' agenda was legitimized by virtue of the fact that Hamas won the election. Recent infighting between different Palestinain factions suggest, however, that this argument may be a little premature. We'll have to wait to see.

''Acts of terrorism can never be justified." Do you agree? Refer to Christianity.?

By whom?

I agree, but a fundie Islamist would "violently" disagree.

In Christianity though, for sure no murder can be justified. Christ taught to love your enemies.

How do you believe that present-day sects would justify their terrorist actions? (to muhammad)?

The qu'ran repeatedly states that infidels (non-Muslims) who refuse to convert to Islam must be killed. The terrorists are simply following their book religiously and literally. The logic goes that allah gave muhammed the qu'ran, so allah approves its message, so following the instruction of the qu'ran pleases allah, even if that includes slaughtering infidels.

How do you believe present-day sects would justify their terrorist actions to Muhammad?

The terrorists are just doing what it says to do in their Quran. Muhammad committed countless atrocities while alive and claimed it was alright by Allah. Muhammad would congratulate the terrorists for being true to Islam.

May God Bless you.

Why does the US fund terrorism?

Me thinks your bias is showing.

But no one has ever said that the government, regardless of who is in power, has ever done the ethical thing. Expedient? Sure. But ethical? No.

But geopolitical circumstances change. Someone who is our ally or friend (or even just an enemy of our enemy) today may not be tomorrow. So these things can, do and have happened throughout history. Not justifying it, but explaining how it could happen.

And then there is the "one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist" argument. Combine that with the previous point and you have the potential for such funding to happen.

But rather than condemn the entire system for it, I choose to recognize that it can happen for some of the reasons I mentioned and try to minimize both the frequency and severity of those decisions.