Ask a question

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.

Can religious beliefs justify terrorism?

Religions are snapshots of the time and era they come into existance and never change after that.With time, new data powered by developments, culture, governments and geographies redrawn, what remains unchanged by its very nature is ONLY religion. Such stubbornness gives rise to total disregard of the ‘current’ by adherent followers.When current trends are not inline with age old ideologies, conflicts arise and for most part the conflicts are resolved through what modern culture terms as ‘terrorism'. Terrorism is merely an act of making people (who are swaying off) comply by hook or crook. This is the very definition of religion and most recent definition for terrorism. With advanced technology, the things you can do with ‘hook and crook' increased multi-fold.The question, What are you willing to do for your religion if you won't get caught? has almost same answers throughout the ages but current technology is good at both creating mass destruction and also at hiding the tracks, good enough to classify such acts as acts of terror.So, religion has always been this way. New technology just exposed the religions as to what they are. Terrorism has been in the heart of religions but has been working in small scales due to technological limitations. Now that is not the case and they are exposed.Is it justified? It depends on the question as to whether religion itself is justified. If you have religions, you have acts of terror because an entity that follows a written book that never changes with time can keep up with time only by means of terror. With time though the amount of technology available for disposal increases. We might have even crossed the threshold without anyone noticing.

''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.

What will happen if a civilian kills a terrorist? Will he be jailed or honoured?

For my answer I am modifying your question a little bit.What will happen if a civilian kills a terrorist? Will he/SHE be jailed or honoured?Do you know this girl?She’s Rukhsana Kausar.She has been awarded the India National Bravery Award, for the killing of a Lasker-e-Taiba militant leader at her residence, using an axe and AK47 rifle.She has also been awarded following-:On 4 November 2009, she was given the Rani Jhanshi bravery award during a felicitation function held at Durgapura in Jaipur.Sardar Patel Award and Cash award of Rs 1 lakh by AIATF, Gujarat.Cash award of Rs 1 lakh by Aastha Welfare Society, Nahan.On Friday 8 January 2010, the President of India announced the Sarvottam Jeevan Raksha Padak for Rukhsana.On the eve of Republic Day, on Monday, 25 January 2010, Rukhsana and her brother, Aijaz, were awarded the Kirti Chakra, the second highest gallantry award in peacetime, for their bravery act.She had taken a position as constable in her home town.I am pretty much sure that civilian would be honoured.Source :- Wikipedia

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.

Do you think that the killing of 8 SIMI terrorists can be justified? A video of police shooting unarmed men has also been released. What's your view on this?

First of all correct your question . They were Terrorists not Members . I am happy that you put up this question . According to your logic there is no difference between Terrorist and member of an organisation. Then now news should flash like this ..Bomb Blast conducted by peaceful SIMI membersA member of Indian Mujahiddin blow himself with bombA member of Peace loving organization killed 35 terrorists in a mall.A peaceful member beheaded a Army men.A member of SIMI murdered a party Personal.Now let's come to your question. Yes , its totally justified , Why didn't you post a questionIs Myrtyrdom of Police constable justified by killing just 8 terrorists ?Is Myrtyrdom of Army men justified by just one surgical strike ?Why only terrorists are innocent in the eyes of Politicians ?Why only family members of terrorists are shown as poor ?Why every time investigation is asked for killing terrorists ?Why policemen are put in jails for killing terrorists ?Why no interview of martyrdom family member are taken but Burhan wani father's interview was taken by many media house ?Even if this was a planned encounter then also I will support this coz they were terrorists not any innocent citizens…… But I know opposition will surely try to prove it fake and then will ask questions from Narendra Modi…Edit 1 : Few of comments are giving reference of videos shown by our Media house . But I have a question . These media house proved JNU video as fake or doctored one then how they are authenticating that SIMI video as real or not doctored without any proof…. ???