Can terrorism ever be justified?

Question

I am working on a debate and I have to take the side that it can be justified some if not all of the time. I need if possible resources or references to sites. And if you are going to answer that it is never justified or something like that please don't bother unless you can really defend your opinion with facts and references.

NO YES OR NO ANSWER FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! Your answer is ok Goddess of Sleep

Answer 1

As a purely academic exercise, there are a couple of tacks you can take to argue this position:

The first is that it depends on how you define 'terrorism.' If, you define 'terrorism' as the pursuit of a political or social ends by non-military personnel through the application of force against civilian, government, or military targets, then I think you could argue that justified terrorism is a notion which is completely consistant with the American experience. For example, under this definition, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and thereafter forcefully pursued their independence from the King would have been guilty of terrorism. They oversaw a guerilla campaign against their natural sovereign and clearly believed that what they were doing was a treasonable offence as evidenced by the line in the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Nevertheless, they also spoke to the beief that in some situations, insurrection (terrorism) is mandated:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They knew that what they were doing was treasonous but acknowledged it as a practical and necessary solution to despotim.

The other way in which one can make a case that terrorism is legitimized in some situations is through historical eventuality. The theory is new and a little complex, but it basically states that terrorism becomes legitimized in a democracy when the political agendas of those who conduct terrorist campaigns become more popular than the agendas of those who hold power. In particular, political scientists point to the recent successes of Hamas in Palestinan elections. For a while, the policywonks were saying that Hamas' agenda was legitimized by virtue of the fact that Hamas won the election. Recent infighting between different Palestinain factions suggest, however, that this argument may be a little premature. We'll have to wait to see.

Answer 2

Is Terrorism Ever Justified

Answer 3

Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified

Answer 4

The definition of justification is that to justify is to show something 'apt or right' about the action or just to show something positive about it... So yes, you can justify terrorism. It's right relative to the cause of the terrorists.. highly apt.

Now, moral justification would be something different - was is right? was it good? I doubt it was right or good, but it's relative to the cause of the terrorist.

You are touching on an issue that's sensitive to people - one which others can get very easily offended (good, I like that). I'd say you can justify it - that doesn't mean I don't care about the 4,000+ who died 9/11 or the thousands of troops that have died since then... but it comes down to what we personally concieve as 'right' or 'good' and it just so happens that the terrorists see the 'good' in what they do ... so therefore it can be justified. Not in a way that Americans will appreciate... but need to get over (we are not the only country in the world).

Answer 5

OK, given that you are in a debate, and you have to put forth the best argument you can to justify terrorism, let me see if I can help you.

Your first step is to define terrorism. Obviously, the broader the definition, the easier it will be to find a section of it that you want to justify.

If you look at how the US government defines terrorism, you can find it at FEMA's website. Terrorism is defined as follows:

Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom.

You can put this definition next to the definition of war, which, according to Wikipedia, can be defined as follows:

War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.

The fact of the matter is that many revolutions, insurgencies, and new nations arise out of movements that start with actions that can be defined as terrorism. If you look at the FEMA definition, even the Boston Tea Party, an act of rebellion by people who were still legally subjects of the King of England, would be defined as terrorism.

Through the perspective of our American History, we tend to view the Colonial Armies, in terms of fighting the British, as an 'Army' and we call their actions 'The Revolutionary War'. The fact of the matter is that if you define a war as an organized use of physical force by states or other large groups, then how do we classify the Revolutionary War? There was no 'America', it was an English Colony. The 'Americans' were people living in the colony whose determined acts of rebellion, insubordination, and violence, which included property destruction and killing, overthrew the existing government of the day.

In general, Americans of the 21st century can look at these tactics (which meet the FEMA definition of terrorism) as justified, since they established the great nation of America which we enjoy today. Had Washington, Adams, and the rest of the 'Founding Fathers' been alive in 2006 instead of 1776, they would have been branded as 'terrorists' by the media, instead of patriots and heroes like they are today.

So we would ask.....do we condemn these 'necessary acts' of building a nation and fighting for freedom as terrorism, or do we continue our justification of the American Revolution as a struggle for independence and the greatest nation ever established?

Hope this gets you started.....these kinds of debates are interesting (and yes, I could debate and probably would prefer to debate the other side, but in a debate, you need to learn to embrace both sides of the argument).

Answer 6

RE:
Can terrorism ever be justified?
I am working on a debate and I have to take the side that it can be justified some if not all of the time. I need if possible resources or references to sites. And if you are going to answer that it is never justified or something like that please don't bother unless you can really defend your...

Answer 7

Yeah, look up at the G8's rules for participating in war and tell me how a country as small as, say, Afghanistan is supposed to establish a naval fleet, a standing army, to attack only combatant targets on its enemies' territories with a limited economy and resources WHILE it's (allegedly) being oppressed by Western superpowers who established these very rules to negate small countries from participating in wars.

You can't respect the soveriegnty of a nation while ruling them out of defending and attacking in thier own nation's interests. Arguably, the rules of war created terrorism. If a country is completely unable to participate according to the "rules," which were established without their consent, and completely because of circumstances beyond its control (Kuwait can't be a superpower), then if a nation genuinely feels it's been wronged, it is justified to fight by whatever means it can.

Answer 8

Yes. Abuse of the terrorist group human rights - freedom of religion, speech, access to medical attention, food, shelter. You can only push people so far before they push back with whatever limited resources they have (including terrorism).

Have you heard of runaway slaves in the Caribbean who used to live in the forest and conduct raids on the slave plantations? Killing those opposed to the abolishion and the masters too. Could you blame them for fighting against their enforced slavery?

I guarantee you'll find disgusting fat yanks answering "Hell f*cking no" when they live in palaces with running water and all the food to fuel their obese bodies. Freedom to say and do what ever the f*ck they want. Its easy for them to judge since they never suffer the humiliations a day in their life. It's not fair to blame America for its success i guess but it sure ain't f*cking fair for America to judge the rest of the world. What the f*ck do they know.

Answer 9

It usually depends on who's defining "terrorism." It also depends on what one considers "justified." You could make the case that the Sons of Liberty during the American Revolution were terrorists. You could possibly call the civil rights activists terrorists, although their actions were mostly peaceful.

Answer 10

in the minds of the terrorists, that are sacrificing their leaders, or their members to suicide bombings, its already justified. they feel that its the only way to rid themselves of the problems the world is handing them. an eye for an eye... except its more like an eye for a population... they just want to wipe out everything else.

in the minds of everyday americans? sure, with enough ignorance, and nervous laughter, you can forget anything. or choose not even to have recognized it in the first place.

this wasnt the answer you wanted, was it?