Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Are there circumstances in which terrorism can be justified and defended. Or is terrorism always 100% wrong whatever the circumstances?
I'm just thinking could terrorist action against rogue states (i.e. Iran, North Korea) be defended.
Do you have any sympathy at all with any terrorist group?
Do some groups wrongly get labeled as terrorists? (e.g. in the late 1980's the Pentagon described the ANC (African National Congress as a major terrorist organization)) - Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress#Terrorism_and_violence
Are today's terrorists a part of the future government of the world?
I'm not defending terrorists but wanted to open this debate up, can terrorism ever be defended/justified?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
Do you have any sympathy at all with any terrorist group?
Do some groups wrongly get labeled as terrorists? (e.g. in the late 1980's the Pentagon described the ANC (African National Congress as a major terrorist organization)) - Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress#Terrorism_and_violence
Are today's terrorists a part of the future government of the world?
I'm not defending terrorists but wanted to open this debate up, can terrorism ever be defended/justified?
- In Belief and Thought |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
October 09, 2009 03:30 PM
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
This basically comes down to perspective. What one person calls terrorism, another calls 'freedom fighting'. This name-game is part of information warfare, which has been part of any war in history. The 'other' party has always been 'the infidel'. Isn't it strange that often both parties in a conflict claim to fight for a just cause, and that God is on their side?
The 'terrorism' tactic is in essence no more than just another military tactic. Each tactic has its merit, its goal, its cost and its side-effects.
US warfare is often based on firepower and technological superiority. Russia and China rely on manpower and sturdy resiliency.
There is a lot of documentation on terrorism, and this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism is a very good source. It shows that many different views exist on what terrorism actually is, and that its definition has changed over time.
I find the quote from Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution very intreguing:“Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.”
In essence, the use of terror as a means to fight a war is no different than the classic ways of war, that were first described in 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu a long time ago in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War), it is just not what 'we' are accustomed to.
Edit and disclaimer: I know many will probably not agree with this answer, but I tried to answer without taking the current 'war on terror' into acount. I in no way support Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, or any of their followers!
On a lighter side-note, without 'terror', we wouldn't have had this beautiful hotel!
The 'terrorism' tactic is in essence no more than just another military tactic. Each tactic has its merit, its goal, its cost and its side-effects.
US warfare is often based on firepower and technological superiority. Russia and China rely on manpower and sturdy resiliency.
There is a lot of documentation on terrorism, and this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism is a very good source. It shows that many different views exist on what terrorism actually is, and that its definition has changed over time.
I find the quote from Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution very intreguing:“Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.”
In essence, the use of terror as a means to fight a war is no different than the classic ways of war, that were first described in 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu a long time ago in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War), it is just not what 'we' are accustomed to.
Edit and disclaimer: I know many will probably not agree with this answer, but I tried to answer without taking the current 'war on terror' into acount. I in no way support Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, or any of their followers!
On a lighter side-note, without 'terror', we wouldn't have had this beautiful hotel!
| Asker's Rating: |
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (1)
October 09, 2009 05:41 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
If somebody your size hit you in the face, then you went to the city and saw innocent children playing and pick one of the children and hit one of them in the face, can you justify that. terrorism is 100% percent wrong. Because you take your revenge on the innocent. Someone who are innocent of your business.
If someone hit you because you are vulnerable and innocent do you like it? That's the tactic of terrorism.
Helpful Answer?
If someone hit you because you are vulnerable and innocent do you like it? That's the tactic of terrorism.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 11, 2009 02:59 PM
Nice analogy. It only misses one point: Terrorism (or guerilla warfare) is usually a means for those who are not the equal. The US is far superior in size or military power. Attacking them heads-on with the same means would result in instant defeat.
Report
