Talk About It! discussion

I would like to know what do you think about this. In certain situations - for example, when your opponent is much larger force, one that you can't defeat in "regular" combat, would use of terrorism be justified?

Think, for example, of Nazi Germany in WW2. Would it be justified to explode bombs in residential parts of Berlin, in order to try to force Hitler to move his troops out of your country?

That is a really hard question. In Syria they were doing that in hopes of killing Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus but they didn't put the bombs anywhere near enough and ended up killing a bunch of civilians, particularly children. The scene was horrifying. If they had succeeded they might have saved thousands more innocent lives but instead their sloppiness ended up killing more and saving none. I don't know exactly what is going on there now, I haven't heard much in the last few weeks since North Korea started all its threats.

I myself don't think it can be justified. I don't know. If you stoop to the level of being willing to kill innocents just for a chance at the enemy then I think the question should be raised of whether your side deserves to win at all. I think terrorism is more along the lines of cowardice. I think war is a stupid way to solve differences but us humans seem unable to solve things any other way when it comes down to it. Geez, that is a hard question Zoran. What do you think?

I don't think it's about justifying it. One can never say it's Ok to kill another human being for any reason. What one can do, however, is try and take an honest look behind the reasons it's happening and attempt to understand the motivations of the people who are doing it and perhaps appreciate that they feel that strongly about a situation, and that it's the only solution that they have open to them.

The blanket response to terrorism of "you hurt me, I'm going to get you back" upsets me as much as the terrorist act itself because it aggravates and perpetuates situations that lead to terrorism. The lack of attempt to understand the problems that lead to violence lead to further violence and make the terrorist attacks seem justified.

No. Terrorism is never justified.

Terrorism is about striking at civilian targets in order to produce fear, chaos, and government crackdowns on civil institutions to create civil unrest (which, in turn, produces more fear and chaos). It's not "freedom fighting" or "guerrilla warfare"... to put it bluntly, it's f***ing cowardice.

If you have an issue with a government or military authority, you strike at targets associated with that authority: offices, supply dumps, bases, etc. You encourage civilians employed at those places to sabotage machinery and jam up security checkpoints. In short, you do what you can to confine the fighting to the enemy whenever possible.

Will there be collateral damage? Yes. In war, people get hurt. It's inevitable. That's why it should be a last resort. The point is to try and minimize that damage wherever possible.

Terrorists, however, don't do that. They strike at innocents deliberately: dance clubs, markets, the World Trade Center... the list goes on. It's as dishonorable as it gets.

It's also counterproductive: nothing sways people against you more than killing them, especially when you're only doing it to make their lives more complicated.

So, what do you think about bombing civilian targets in regular war? Is this the same as terrorism? Or is it different?

For example, nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or carpet-bombing of German cities at the end of WW2?

I don't think you should ever go after civilian targets. Whether it is considered terrorism or not, it is unacceptable to purposefully target civilians. No matter the country.

What happens then when you've been brainwashed or basically told outright that there are no civilians in this war? That's sadly what a lot of things I've read have shown me. That there were and therefore are no civilians in war. I don't think we can judge those who truly believe there are only combatants in a war environment because of brainwashing or lies (like those who dropped the bombs in WW2 I'm not so sure they knew why they were doing it or what it would do). But we should hold leaders somewhat accountable.

I think that targeting civilians is a different thing to terrorism in the above situations but I still think it is something that should not ever really need to be or have been done. Unfortunately it often stems out of the belief that one country has to invade another for their best interests along with the interests of global peace (of course keep in mind that the US never joined a war unless their own interests were at stake). And therefore using bombs or something similar (drones) becomes much easier and simpler.

I don't believe terrorism is ever justified. I don't believe torture is truly justified on a moral level, though it may be necessary. That's the unfortunate nature of humans and life. Some things which are never justifiable may be viewed as necessary for the long run. That's what interested me the most about Watchmen, the idea that some things may be seen as necessary though not morally right. And of course we have the idea of the 'hero' stating that one should never compromise.

In essence terrorism is bullying amplified with advanced weaponry to the point where they can cause as much chaos and scaremongering as possible. Bullying is never justified, therefore terrorism is ten times upwards worse.

This is an interesting question.

I like all of the comments above, and while I am inclined to say no terrorism cannot be justified, I don't have a tonne of points or a tonne of time to support my argument. I just wanted to add my two cents worth.