I just ran into this randomly on the "internets " and decided that it was actually a good topic to bring in here.

A pro argument: "In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause."

And a con: "Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent pro-*test*-('") is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering."


Both not my own writings, I just put them here to stir a discussion. So.. can terrorism ever be justified?

i just realized how much i've really come to abhor the word "terrorism" over the last few years. i was also thinking how much terrorism has in common with war, which led me to thinking about our "war on terror"...terror is fear in its extreme. how can there be a war on terror (a war on fear) without spreading further fear? isn't the purpose of fighting against anything to eradicate it? but anyway...

since i feel that terrorism is a form of war, i would say that i believe, in some instances, it is necessary to resort to terror, as a last resort in order to survive. what else could you do, besides accept the status quo (or worse), if your back is against the wall and nothing else has worked?

just like some wars are justified and some are not, the same is true of terrorism.
and just like there are rules of engagement in war, there should be rules of engagement in terrorism. people should refrain from acting like thugs, killing innocent people because they're in a position to act in revenge or holding planes full of hostages to get political prisoners released, etc.
in those instances, i feel there could be no true winners on either side.

Let us use an example then…

The Anti-Nazi Resistance in WW2!

They carried out bombings of both civilian and military targets vital to the function of Nazi Germany. This included structures that had been built by the former government but where taken over by Germany, such as railway stations. Innocent people died in those bombings and attacks because you can’t tell people not to be around locations without giving the game way. Yet no one would deny that these attacks where vital in preventing the spread of Nazi Germany and crippling it as much as possible till outside forces could bring Germany back into line.

Before this catch phrase of ‘terrorism’ became the new communism many nations had carried out ‘terrorist style’ attacks and many times did so with the knowledge, support and even open approval of our leaders. Even today groups and nations carry out these same styled attacks with the western world’s covert approval. While the targeted countries call it acts of terror our leaders call it freedom fighting.

Personally I feel the answer to the con is this:
What if you have no democratic process left available to you?
What if you where lined up and shot for even non-violent resistance of the government?
Do you just go quietly into the night?

Justified or not I would do it, if somebody would steal everything I have, would invade my house, made me sleep under the bad or in closet and didn't allow me to get food from the fridge when I am hungry I would tell him: you are too powerful to do something directly to you but when your kid is alone I will bitch-slap him -- so it's your choice: you let me live in peace or you suffer the consequences.

Of course I could apply the same tactic to determine people to do things they don't want to do (and I'm not entitled to ask): "if you don't pay me a fee, I can attack your kid" or "if you don't pray to my God I will put explosive in your car" ultimately what matter is if the people see this as justified or not and if the terrorized person accepts the deal or not.

As many people say "terrorism is a tactic, you can't declare a war against a tactic just as you can't declare a war against "Encirclement" " (you can fight against an encirclement, but you can't declare war to the tactic of encirclement)