Is Terrorism morally defensible?

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by redguards, Mar 13, 2012.

Page 3 of 3

  1. StephenColbert27 Active Member

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    758
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Middle of a Corn Field somewhere in Illinois
    What do you mean?
    StephenColbert27, Mar 14, 2012
    #41

  2. shlacka Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Message Count:
    221
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Location:
    USA
    Sly asked shaw what he meant by unjustifiable and I my mind immediately drifted to the treatment of the colonists who fought in the war. Apparently I was wrong. :/
    shlacka, Mar 14, 2012
    #42

  3. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    To the original question.

    Terrorism is a tactic, so is a tactic in an of itself immoral?

    Let's rephrase the question, are outflanking maneuvers morally defensible?

    I think the logical answer here is, being a utilitarian, if it generates a positive amount of good in the world. So if somehow an act of terrorism made people's lives infinitely better then it would be morally defensible. Whether or not such a case exists is an entirely different conversation in and of itself.

    However if you are a pacifist or an absolutist then the answer is always no. Terrorism is never under any circumstances morally defensible.
    JosefVStalin, Mar 14, 2012
    #43
    Rohdan and Imperial1917 like this.

  4. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    I am actually a pacifist, if that helps understand my reasoning in this thread, but to your assertation that terrorism is a tactic, I would have to disagree. To me, terrorism means using force, intimidation, and violence against non-military targets to achieve a goal, and is never justifiable. If you were to apply a similar definition to war or the military, then wouldn't all acts of war be terror attacks? To me it just doesn't make sense.
    And that's my opinion. Terrorism can not be compared to war tactics and strategies.
    The Shaw, Mar 14, 2012
    #44

  5. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    While debatable I think it is a tactic of war, considering I don't think you commit an act of terrorism without being in a war (such is the case in terms of the acts during the revolutionary war which people are debating about), or without the express purpose of declaring war. (Such is the case on 9-11.)
    JosefVStalin, Mar 14, 2012
    #45

  6. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    What about the Troubles? The Unibomber?

    Regardless of whether you consider terrorism a military tactic, the simple fact that terrorism, by it's nature, targets civilians set's it apart from any other acts of war and makes it totally unjustifiable no matter the circumstances.
    The Shaw, Mar 15, 2012
    #46

  7. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    It is a tactic of war.
    You don't have to convince the enemy government to stop, just its people. The people stop wars.
    Vietnam is a prime example. The US could have won militarily [until China got involved directly at least], but it was the public perception of the war that ended it. The people were fed up with having their sons and daughters return home in pine wood boxes, missing limbs or sanity, or not at all.
    How the public looks at something is more important to a government waging war than the war itself in most cases. The enemy may be a long ways away, but the people are right there, under the noses of the government.
    Terrorism strikes fear into the hearts of the public and generates high emotions. Whether or not the emotions generated and the acts taken because of those emotions are what the attackers intended is a different matter.
    Therefore, terrorism is a tactic of war.
    Imperial1917, Mar 15, 2012
    #47

  8. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    I agree that it is often targeted against civilians, but so were the bombing campaigns of WWII and not to mention the atom bomb. Sure you can use the semantic argument they were really trying to bomb infrastructure (which was being operated by civilians) but I don't think anyway really fooled themselves into thinking that it wasn't going to kill 1000s of civilians. So I think they are many acts of war which are targeted against civilians.

    As with your other examples I think they were declaring war, their own personal war.
    JosefVStalin, Mar 15, 2012
    #48

  9. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    Damn it. I was gonna bring up strategic bombing.
    Demondaze, Mar 15, 2012
    #49

  10. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    @Imperial1917 I disagree, though it is too late for me to respond in full. Do you then believe that terrorism is justifiable? I sure hope not. Attacking civilians, whether apart of a war or not, is inexcusable, and disgusting at best. Probably among the worst crimes commitable, regardless of any wars.

    @JosefVStalin
    I don't agree with Strategic bombing, though in most instances(not all) it is seperated from terrorism by motive.
    The Shaw, Mar 15, 2012
    #50

  11. Warburg Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Message Count:
    834
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    United Federal Kingdoms of Scandinavia
    I've always had a hard time distinguishing the fire bombing of Tokyo(and other strategic bombings against civilian targets in WW2) as anything but terrorism. I can justify the bombing of innocent Germans during WW2 and that's why I believe we can justify terrorism when it is the lesser evil.
    If the Allies hadn't bombed the Axis to hell, who could say how long the war would've lasted and how many more lives would've been lost?
    Warburg, Mar 15, 2012
    #51
    StephenColbert27 and SPQR like this.
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page