the argument for terrorism

[Lyddiechu]

alright people, i'm starting a new thread in order to debate whether or not terrorism is always wrong.

i think terrorism is, in today's modern world, an acceptable means of fighting your interest group's war. when nations like the united states make it impossible for any small faction's demands to be heard or realized, terrorism is really the only way to get your point heard. i'm not saying its right to kill innocent people, i am just saying that in today's new world everything is a target and everyone should feel like a targer, since its impossible to be safe and your very nationality puts you at risk. terrorism is only "wrong" by western morality.. but who are we to say what is right for the whole world? we dont have a solution to make the world a better place but we think we do. terrorists think the same way.. they think what they are doing will eventually make the world a better place.

its all about point of view, people. you realize, now, that we cant say anything is wrong or right?

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/20/03 09:38 PM, Lyddiechu wrote:
i think terrorism is, in today's modern world, an acceptable means of fighting your interest group's war. when nations like the united states make it impossible for any small faction's demands to be heard or realized, terrorism is really the only way to get your point heard.

Let's go on your assumption that there is only one way to get an objective, and let's also go on the assumption that the united states is inhibiting others from allowing that objective, does it then become ethical or moral because it is the only way? Whether or not you have ability to do something, does not change it's morality. I'm not making a judgement on your morals, because I don't know your sense of morality and ethics, but someone inhibiting another person from acomplishing an objective by moral means, does not turn accomplishing that same objectives by immoral means, into those of moral means.

i'm not saying its right to kill innocent people, i am just saying that in today's new world everything is a target and everyone should feel like a targer, since its impossible to be safe and your very nationality puts you at risk.

Yes, that's true. We are put at risk, and were are put at risk by who we are. People target people by their race, religion, nationality, or beliefs. This is an example of prejudice, and racism. Racism, Prejudice, and killing of innocence, are not moral or ethical to me. They are not moral or ethical to the majority of the world. Not my Western standards. Not by Islamic standards. Not by Christian, Buddhism, Hindu, Taoist, or any recognizeable percentage of the worlds population.

Racism, prejudice, and murding innocents are wrong. They are never justified, and assuredly they do not justify themselves by right of vengence.

terrorism is only "wrong" by western morality.

I don't understand how you can be under this impression. What morality adopts terrorism as "right"? If morality is maleable, and the majority dicatates morals, who is it, other than western morality (Although that is really a poor term, considering the western world has many varied moralities) that considers terrorism as "right"? None of the major religions adopt terrorism as moral. Secular-Humanitarians do not adopt terrorism as moral. Not only does that account for a majority of the population, but accounts for much more than the "western morality".

Please define what you mean by "western morality" ? Do you mean Christianity, or secular American and european philosophy? Do you mean the majority opinon of people in North America and Europe?

but who are we to say what is right for the whole world?

We are fellow human beings, and there is no reason to divide ourselfs as east and west. My opinon is as valid as anyone in Turkministan, or Tajikistan, Iran, or Somalia, and they mine. Men are inheritly good, and the majority to not condone any form of murder of innocents, or terror.

we dont have a solution to make the world a better place but we think we do.

I do have a solution. Ignorance like the one found in this thread, found in terrorists who would kill innocents, in anyone who would racialy bias, or harm another based purely on their religion, race, or color should be abolished. And it starts with enlightening others to a humanitarian belief, that all life is worthwhile, and equal, and no culture or person should be targeted. That is a soulution to a much better tommarow.

terrorists think the same way.. they think what they are doing will eventually make the world a better place.

Some may believe that, but that idea does not justify their actions. Intentional Murder of innocents is still murder no matter what it's cause.

its all about point of view, people. you realize, now, that we cant say anything is wrong or right?

We can go beyond good and evil, and we can also go beyond common ignorance. Racism, Prejudice, and murder are not shared views by any majority, or any sane healthy people. Men inheritly help each other, and inheritly avoid, pain, strife, and misery, all of us are equal in this.

Terrorism, as American as apple pie.
www.earthliberationfront.com See kids? Not all terrorists are bad.
I support eco-terrorism, the government has always exploited mother earth and with Bush Jr. in the white house, the environment has been degrading even faster and millions of acres of land have been destroyed to make way for "progress" but when it comes to a religious fanatic waving his holy book I give him the holy middle finger, assholes like the Taleban or the first American colonial christians give religion a bad name.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/20/03 10:41 PM, nailbomb wrote: Terrorism, as American as apple pie.
www.earthliberationfront.com See kids? Not all terrorists are bad.

To me this website shows, what I would consider, more of an extreme civil disobidence, than a terrorism.

The purpose of what these people are doing is do act in such an awfuly illegal way that they get their point across with the destruction of property, or inhibition of what they consider destructive, but means that are not extremely violent.

Terrorism is often getting an idea out by murdering or creating a fear for one's own safety and life so devestating that a society is crippled and forced to give in.

[Lyddiechu]

i dont support earth liberation front, or any other terrorist organization, im just saying that terrorism is just as acceptable as what the us army does in its own way. its not ok to take away "innocent" lives, but all warfare does that, whether legitimate or not. the us army engages in terroristic activities while on paramilitary operations, and its ok with me. the world is ugly and brutish, to paraphrase hobbes, but here we are safe in america thanks mostly to operations that use unconventional (and truly terroristic) warfare.

by western morality i mean the morality that europe and mostly the united states tries to impose upon the world.

the argument about religion really doesnt matter in terrorism, its pan-religious. ethnic tribes fight each other with terrorism in the balkans just like arabs and jews fight each other in israel, the gaza strip, and the west bank. in fact the us army helping israel is considered terrorism by the majority or muslim nations, and that is considered acceptable action by the standards of western morality i was talking about.

[Ted-Easton]

I can understand the somewhat irrational topic trail you're following, and I've peered down it myself, but in order for it to be true....

We must do what we think is right.
They must do what they think is right.

And according to your theory, we have realized that there is no right or wrong, so the above two points are invalid.

A twisty, turny trail, but it only leads you in a neverending circle.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/20/03 09:38 PM, Lyddiechu wrote:

its all about point of view, people. you realize, now, that we cant say anything is wrong or right?

Oh no, I think it's quite safe to hold the world to a code that making strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up people who are only perhaps peripherally involved with the "cause" for which you are fighting is always wrong.

Let's face it, terroists fall into maybe two categories: Religious/Political Extremists or the Mentally Ill people. They are not in anyway right or justified in their actions, they are cowardly, or in need of serious psychiatric help. To in anyway argue that destroying people or property with terroist actions is unconcinable...I swear to god...that's the problem with you DAG guys, sometimes you say something thought provoking and interesting, and other times you just come off as reprehensible people. This thread fits the topic starter into the latter.

[Lyddiechu]

At 6/20/03 11:21 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: I can understand the somewhat irrational topic trail you're following, and I've peered down it myself, but in order for it to be true....

We must do what we think is right.
They must do what they think is right.

And according to your theory, we have realized that there is no right or wrong, so the above two points are invalid.

A twisty, turny trail, but it only leads you in a neverending circle.

well, then, what do you profess, that we just tell terrorists they are wrong and expect them to stop? you are also ignoring a large part of my argument.. that it is sometimes necessary for all nations to participate in unconventional (and therefore terroristic, since they dont abide by the geneva convention) warfare to protect their interests. the only way to ever stop terrorism is to get every country, tribe, and spiritual movement in the world to agree to not lie about any of their actions or ways of influencing situations and to stop using terrorism, all at once, which will never ever happen. terrorism is here to stay.

and aviewskiewed.. not all terrorists are suicide bombers. martyrism is so foolish, i agree.. but much terrorism can be done without martyring onesself.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/21/03 12:11 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

and aviewskiewed.. not all terrorists are suicide bombers. martyrism is so foolish, i agree.. but much terrorism can be done without martyring onesself.

Good point...and I shouldn't have limited it to martyism (though I was think of Ted Kazynski when I refferenced the Mentally Ill) by you're logic it seems to me, we should just accept terroism, we should accept people who don't play fair in war, except the ridicoulos martydom of suicide bombers, and the the destruction of property and loss of life from people like Ted Kazynski, Tim Mcveigh, and the list goes on and on...you're saying we shouldn't strive to end this stuff? You're saying we should just say "well, not my bag, but to each his own, just hope I'm not the next victim" that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe terroism won't go away...George Bush may be fighting a losing battle here, but it's a battle worth fighting is the point. I really can not see an argument in which you can convince me that giving up on protecting ourselves from acts which destroy lives and property is okay. How you could conceive for a moment such actions would have any sort of moral justification is beyond me.

[Lyddiechu]

i never said that we should not fight terrorism, im saying that we can't accuse terrorists of being beyond the realm of moral discourse. of course we should fight terrorism, but we have to accept the fact that terrorists have a good reason for doing what they do. im not quite as fatalistic as i sound, except that i know terrorism will always be there and we will always have to fight it. it will never be wiped off the face of the earth, thats just impossible. people and their movements are just too unpredictable to always be able to stop terrorism before it starts.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/21/03 01:30 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: i never said that we should not fight terrorism, im saying that we can't accuse terrorists of being beyond the realm of moral discourse. of course we should fight terrorism, but we have to accept the fact that terrorists have a good reason for doing what they do. im not quite as fatalistic as i sound, except that i know terrorism will always be there and we will always have to fight it. it will never be wiped off the face of the earth, thats just impossible. people and their movements are just too unpredictable to always be able to stop terrorism before it starts.

What good reason? Here's the flaw in you're argument, you're saying "I don't like or encourage terroism...but they have a good reason" you're argument is flawed because you want to play devils advocate, but not go all the way and say terroism is good...this isn't an argument for terroism as the topic states...next time, go all the way when you post something like this. I think I'm done posting here...you've backpeddled like hell from you're first post.

[Lyddiechu]

no, i diddnt back pedal at all. just because something is morally ok doesnt mean i advocate it. theres a big difference between me saying there are good reasons for it and me going ahead and using it as my means of operation, or saying that it is the best means of operation. sheesh. terrorism isnt good, but it isnt wrong either. something can suck but still be morally acceptable, par example abortion.

[TheShrike]

Good one, Lyddie!

I can see your point about terrorism and comparing it to the scope of war. But my question is this: if terrorism is merely a different side of the same coin as war, then any terrorist act constitutes war (and hands just cause to retaliation).

This line of thought justifies the actions of any government against those it dislikes.

So, what's the point? If terrorism = war, then we have a net change of zero in the world. And sometimes terrorist actions end up killing more people on their own side.(See also Afganistan)

So, are you saying terrorism is a good thing?

At 6/21/03 01:30 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: i never said that we should not fight terrorism, im saying that we can't accuse terrorists of being beyond the realm of moral discourse.

Well, I'd say making a bus full of people explode is a bad thing. And aside from being cowardly (the most they risk is actually making the bomb), it makes kind terms like cruel and unusual punishment feel empty.
Anyone who treats a human lifes as they would a disposable rag is beyond the realm of proper moral ethics. Last I checked, murder for the sake a point was frowned upon universally.

of course we should fight terrorism, but we have to accept the fact that terrorists have a good reason for doing what they do.

In their minds. That does not make them right. Or justified.

[Lyddiechu]

according to my moral code, which states that there is no right or wrong, only point of view.. terrorism is right. but not good. i dont make choices in my life based on what is right or wrong, i make choices based on what will make my life the best for me. i think most of humanity does the same thing, they just refuse to admit it. what makes life good for me is a. not breaking the law, b. studying hard, and c. trying to take care of the environment (both ecological and social)... it has nothing to do with me being some sort of mother theresa, its just that i know ill have a better time in life if more poeple in the world are happier. what makes life better for a terrorist (or what they think makes life better for them) is bombing a bus full of israelis.

who cares if its cowardly?? terrorism gets the job done, at least in the short scheme of things. it gets people killed and gets a point across, which is the ultimate goal. terrorism on a small scale is cheap and easy and a perfect alternative to legitimate war.

since i dont believe in a cause that uses terrorism, its hard for me to back up my point that terrorism, in todays world, is just as legitimate as the us rolling up in somewhere with a tank. i wish i could get a hamas member or something up in here to talk about it.. but.. such things are well nigh impossible.

[poxpower]

I think the real question to ask here is:

If you were in their place, what would YOU do. You, as the person you are now, not as you would be if you'd be raised like them.

I wouldn't kill myself. I would try to leave this dreaded place they live in. They're trapped, and since they're men opposing other men ( as in MALE) they have nothing other than violence on their minds. It's the only solution for them.
The only other thing they could do ( in an oppressed country) is have the whole populace rebel. But given their religious education, that's impossible.

[Ted-Easton]

There is no right or wrong, only point of view, you say.

But shouldnt there be no absolute right or wrong, one that is true unanimously and such?
If there is no right or wrong at all, why do we even need the terms? There is only right or wrong in the eyes of groups/people, and it is their natural action to pursue the courses of action that fall under right.

If you're proposing that we should recognize that the terrorists aren't actually doing something wrong, then the theory regarding only personal rights and wrongs must be wrong because you've just gone passed it. You've recognized that the other group is doing what they think is right.
So by that, either the theory of personal rights and wrongs must be either incorrect, or be only a primitive form of a correct model.
Much like Dalton's model of the atom, it is somewhat correct, but still needs furthur developments.

[Lyddiechu]

At 6/21/03 10:27 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: There is no right or wrong, only point of view, you say.

But shouldnt there be no absolute right or wrong, one that is true unanimously and such?
If there is no right or wrong at all, why do we even need the terms? There is only right or wrong in the eyes of groups/people, and it is their natural action to pursue the courses of action that fall under right.

well, we have the terms because most people think there is a right and wrong.. but really it is just this phenomenon of large groups pursuing what they think is right or wrong (hence the term "morality") usually this right and wrong is based on whatever course of action has proved to be useful for that large group over a long period of time. for example, the bible, the torah, and the koran are no more than a way of instilling order during times of chaos.. books of laws to civilize the populace. dont take that as bashing religion, i have great respect for the ideas in those books (and the religious books that came before them) as the first forms of advanced government.

If you're proposing that we should recognize that the terrorists aren't actually doing something wrong, then the theory regarding only personal rights and wrongs must be wrong because you've just gone passed it. You've recognized that the other group is doing what they think is right.
So by that, either the theory of personal rights and wrongs must be either incorrect, or be only a primitive form of a correct model.
Much like Dalton's model of the atom, it is somewhat correct, but still needs furthur developments.

well, what do you expect? im only 17, and not a philosophy major. get back to me in 4 years when i have a BA. my view might even have changed. the reason i hold the opinion of terrorism that i do is because of a class i took in geopolitics. read a little political theory.. you will be surprised at how drastically your view of the world will change.

[PredsPhan]

Think about what terrorism really is. It's nothing more than murdering innocent people in the most horrific and visible way to gain attention to your cause. Take Eco-terrorists for example. Their goal is to reduce deforestation and strict regulations for logging, if not banning it all together. The way the gain attention to their cause ... imbedding shards of metal in tree bark so that when a chainsaw hits it, it shreds the logger with shrapnel. Think about the people who have been killed by this. They had family and friends, children who depended on them, people who loved them. Those people lost a loved one because a group wanted attention. The after effect is the group will get plenty of attention, but they will be perceived as murderers and no one will want to associate themselves with the cause of a murderer. Terrorism is just plain evil and the worst way of gaining attention.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." - General George S. Patton

[Kenney333]

Its is very hard to have your interests be recognized in the world, but im not sure if it justifies killing, in fact i dont think anything justifies killing, not even self defense. Yes some Guerrilla operations that have been labelled terrorism have led to a greater good, but thats all perspective.

Many people dont understand Bin Ladens motives, most pass them off as religious or hateful motives, but the truth is that he does what he does because he feels his native Saudi Arabia is being accupuied by the US military, both the American and Saudi governent call it protection but he and others like him call it occupation.

But in truth it is all about opinions and perspectives, and the only unniversal truth i can come draw from it is that it is wrong to kill someone for any reason.

[Lyddiechu]

so.. bloodshed is never justified?? im hate to say it.. but most things in the world are won with blood.. all nations were founded with at least some bloodshed (with the excpetion of one or two very new central european nations).. its the way the world operated and unfortunately the only way it will ever operate if there are tiny powers that want to battle larger powers.

[Kenney333]

At 6/21/03 01:48 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: so.. bloodshed is never justified?? im hate to say it.. but most things in the world are won with blood.. all nations were founded with at least some bloodshed (with the excpetion of one or two very new central european nations).. its the way the world operated and unfortunately the only way it will ever operate if there are tiny powers that want to battle larger powers.

its true bloodshed has become a fact of life in the world, but i still try to believe that we can eventually become a world without war by peaceful means, although this goal may seem impossible or improbable believing in it is always the first step. I cant accept that war is a fate to be suffered because although it may be true, accepting it is defeat.

Also i do think that there is a double standard when it comes to terrorism, i consider war to be terrorism and when a bigger country attacks a smaller one is is considered a war(which is apparantly acceptable), but when a smaller one fights back it is considered terrorism(which is considered "evil").

The problem is that with both war and terrorism it can be claimed that they are for peace, when in fact they create the opposite. like my friend Al says, "fighting for peace through war is like fighting for verginity through sex".

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/21/03 01:48 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: so.. bloodshed is never justified?? im hate to say it.. but most things in the world are won with blood.. all nations were founded with at least some bloodshed (with the excpetion of one or two very new central european nations).. its the way the world operated and unfortunately the only way it will ever operate if there are tiny powers that want to battle larger powers.

True...just about every country came into existence by war and violence, by some tribe saying "This is mine, and if you try to take it, you will be killed" But there in lies the difference to me: In the case of armys and those tribes, they drew a line and told anyone who would attack them that if they crossed said line, they would suffer the consequences, terroists don't do that, they attack without warning and usually without provocation (except for the imagined provocations they're own minds create). I'm not an advocate of war, I share Kenney's hope that one day we can become a peaceful world and work out our differences diplomatically, but that does not of course, blind me to the facts as they stand.

I strongly suggest you take a course on Ethics and Moral Problems Lyddie, I think you would find it rather enlightening...right now you're stance is moral relativism, with just a pinch of Egoism involved, but mostly Moral Relativism. I agree that with some more life experience, and some real study of ethics and morality, you're opinions would change. I also think some time in a country like Israel, where terroist attacks happen just about EVERY DAY would also be mind expanding for you. It's really easy to say "I don't see a problem with terroism" when you live in the United States, and our experiences with terroism are limited, and few and far between. Go put in some study with ethics and morals, than come back and we'll see if you're position on this discussion dosen't change.

[karasz]

terrorism is the actions of the voiceless...

personally i feel that terrorism is not wrong... its just another way to fight a war...

and rules of war are outdated... i mean seriously the rules were made when war was against 2 governments... now its a government and a group...

At 6/21/03 12:27 PM, PredsPhan wrote:

:The way the gain attention to their cause ... imbedding shards of metal in tree bark so that when a chainsaw hits it, it shreds the logger with shrapnel. Think about the people who have been killed by this. They had family and friends, children who depended on them, people who loved them. Those people lost a loved one because a group wanted attention.

I don't suppose you have any proof of a logger getting killed in such a manner?

Was Che Guevara a terrorist? By definition, yes. He was executed by a US-trained Bolivian soldier on october 9th 1967. Why? Because back then communists were today's Iraq; the bogus threat to national security. I can't compare Che Guevara because Guevara never murdered any civilians and both men had their own reasons to defend themselves against America.

I am not opposed to terrorism, I am opposed to terrorism for the wrong reasons. Remember, you don't control the US army, the government does.

[mysecondstar]

humans, as a species, define themselves by conflict. man can never be at peace. in a perfect world without greed, corruption, or grudges we would cease to exist as we do today. and in this perfect world violence would cease. there would be no conflict of interest amongst anyone.

most morals are based on the pursuit of perfection. this and the above in mind makes terrorism and violence in general immoral.

[Lyddiechu]

At 6/21/03 02:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

:I also think some time in a country like Israel, where terroist attacks happen just about EVERY DAY would also be mind expanding for you. It's really easy to say "I don't see a problem with terroism" when you live in the United States, and our experiences with terroism are limited, and few and far between. Go put in some study with ethics and morals, than come back and we'll see if you're position on this discussion dosen't change.

its interesting that you say that, since i am a pretty hardcore zionist. however, i also believe that all acts that have gone between the israelis and palestinians are acts on terrorism, on both sides. they will continue until the savages they have as leaders decide to put an end to it... since i love the idea of a jewish homeland, i hope that is soon, and i hope they throw out both sharon and arafat. the israeli army employs a lot of terroristic-style tacticts which is part of why they are so successful (the other reason being they are funded by the us military.. but that really cant be the entire reason for their success since throwing money and weapons at a cause wont help wihtout brains behind it) therse a big difference between organized terrorism and terrorism done by a lone nut. terrorism by a lone nut, because of my moral relativism.. i still cant say is wrong, i just have to say its incredibly stupid. organized terrorism is more intelligently executed but still its depressing that they have to use it. i say they have to since you must admit, as karasz wisely inferred... its pretty much impossible to fight large powers in any other way.

[damndifwedordont]

i think terrorism is the only real way for a rag tag bunch of people or an "army" to fight think back on vietnam our people thought that the vietcong were cowards for attacking with small groups and using hit and run tactics but which country adopted those tactics? the USofA of course but this was 30 some odd years ago but in todays world the USofA's enemy are also considered cowards but this new enemy uses a new way of combat which has never been before seen. think about it this new rag tag bunch of lunitics stand no chance of fighting the USofA military head on "terrorism" is the only way that they can bring the fight to "us"
i also think that SOME terrorism is justified but that explanination would take to far long to explain why but an emamxple would be the whole country of isreal, by their own standards its not supposed to be and with out the USofA's help it would have fallen a long time ago and isrealites would have been terrorist by us and every other country and look at isreals neighbor palestine, those people have been oppressed for far to long by isreal and when they fight back in head to head combat it leads to failure so terrorism on the puppet master country is the "terrorists" only way at getting back at us. just think about it

[aviewaskewed]

My argument has been that I think that there ARE moral absolutes, that I believe if a people say something is wrong, than it is wrong...the world is based on societal structures, groups rights and security over that of individuals. I think the problem I take with the arguments presented FOR terroism is that my definition is more limited than yours. To me, terroism is the destructive actions of a single person, or group, with NO governmental authority or recognition, basically something like Al Qaieda, or someone like Ted Kazynski, they follow their own agendas and are not given any sort of recognized authority.

I don't find the actions of the Viet Cong to be terroistic, simply because they were in a war, they were attacked, and they HAD the governmental authority of North Vietnam to push the invaders out. Does that mean I'm fine with what they did? Fuck no! But they are not terroists under my definition of the word. Israel and the Palestinians is a little bit vaguer I must admit...Israel has an army, they are a recognized nation...the Palestinians are a little more open to debate on that score...again, I think I have to say that I can say that it they are engaged in a form of "war" since both sides make it clear they don't have much love for the other (although I'm pleased, and somewhat encouraged by the cooperation we're beginning to see towards peace).

I guess for me...bottom line...I think you can almost always diplomatically solve your problems, and it isn't terroism if you're being shot at, and you have to resort to less than expressly fair means to defend yourself. Terroism to me is an unprovoked act of violence against a government, or group of people, and that is wrong.

[Lyddiechu]

ok well, there is the problem. we both have different definitions of terrorism. i take terrorism to be any organized, violent act that is not legitimate warfare as defined by the geneva conventions, so of course some, if not most of that can be morally justified by some standards or another.

i really wish diplomacy could solve everything. i have some faith in it, but right now american diplomacy is such crap. i want to join the diplomatic corps and/or work my way into a policy making think tank after college not because i agree with how the us executed diplomacy now, but because i want to change how it operates. its really depressing how many good diplomatic opportunities are wasted by the us in the name or oil and saving the haliburton company. *sigh*

plus most terroristic organizations could never benefit from american diplomacy as it exists today, so in that way i cant say they are wrong.

i just remembered by uncle (who is now a philosophy professor) wrote his college essay about the moral justifications for terrorism. it got him into yale, but got him rejected from harvard. i dont know how he feels about the issue today.. i should ask him, but he is a real curmudgeon as philosophy professors are wont to be.

oh and another questin, is there anyone else here from the nyc area who agrees with me? i consider myself half form ny even tho i live in philly sinc ei was born there, my entire mothers side of the family lives there, and i have lived there every summer of my life.