Is Terrorism always wrong? Read below before you answer...?

Question

Yesterday, I answered a question - "Would you hand over your family to the police if they were a terrorist?" I answered this question as "No. Family before the state and death before dishonour". What a surprise, that this aroused a fair deal of controversy.

I don't need to justify my value system to you, and I am an atheist, not a Muslim as the angry responses seemed to be attacking me for being. I am also not American, I am British.

Today, in the interests of free debate, I am asking this controversial question. Before you answer it, I want to say that I think that the 9/11 and 07/07 bombings were atrocious and not justifiable, as were the IRA bombings in London before, and as are most of the terrorist attacks in Kashmir.

Having said that, I also ask you to look at certain facts about terrorism before you make your judgement - please do not answer in a knee-jerk reaction:

a) In India, when the country was freeing itself from British Raj, terrorists were "freedom-fighters".

b) I have actually watched US movies where the IRA was glorified - before 09/11. For example, Richard Gere's character in 'The Jackal' with Bruce Willis.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Answer 1

Revolution and terrorism are two completely different things.

When India was freeing itself from the British Raj was it led by terrorists or revolutionaries?

Revolution is what people resort to in order to rise above oppressors, using all of their available resources to change their situation. As we know revolution is an atrocity but somehow a neccessary struggle - yes there are always innocent victims in a revolution, and yes there is often bloodshed. However, that does not equate it to terrorism.

Terrorists specifically target innocent people in order to draw the masses into the political, religious or ethnic arena of warfare. They use these targets as bait, knowing that Hate is the most potent fuel with which to proclaim their war.

Terrorists do not boldly march upto their opposition and attempt to throttle them publicly. No, they spin a sticky web of hate from behind their barriers of protection. This way they feel strong. They relish in the fear and panic that ensue as a result of their efforts, they banquet at the table of our fear.

No:
Revolutionaries are bold and honest in their intentions.
Terrorists are cowards who do not know the meaning of honour.

Answer 2

How's this for an atrocity committed by those dirty, stinkin' terrorists, eh? A bomb was placed on a civilian ferry. It was timed to explode when the ferry was over the deepest part of the lake it traversed, and the water was freezing. No warning was given. Fourteen innocent civilians either drowned or froze to death when the bomb went off, sinking the ferry, along with four soldiers who were on board at the time. Would you believe that some people actually consider the terrorists who planted the bomb to be some kind of heroes? They even made a film about them!

It's easy to be judgemental when you only have one side of the story. The ferry was carrying Germany's last stocks of heavy water, essential for the manufacture of a nuclear bomb. It was sunk while crossing Lake Tinn in Norway on February 1940 by Norwegian partisans, or 'freedom fighters' if you like. However, the raid achieved nothing and the fourteen civilians died in vain as Germany's nuclear programme was a complete failure and they were nowhere near the development of anything like a nuclear weapon. The 'Heroes of Telemark' didn't know that, though, but it doesn't change the facts.

So, if you were one of the fourteen civilians floundering about in freezing water with no hope of rescue - terrorist or 'freedom fighter'? It's all a matter of perspective, really.

Answer 3

Yes, terrorism is always wrong.

I will first give my definition of terrorism:
1) Any act that harms innocient people, who many a times have no direct or indirect involvement in the conflict
AND
2) Where the act is done in disguise (not brave enough to come out into open and engage in direct fight)
AND
3) The objective of the perpretrators is to cause terror in the minds of people and destablize their lives, society and economy.

Please notice the AND between the three points. So, acts that meet all the 3 criteria are terrorist acts as per me.

Going by this definition, I would not call Indian freedom fighting terrorism, because, they never killed innocent civilians. The violent faction of the freedom strugglers were a minority, they never attacked british civilians in India or abroad. The targets were only British officers, and most often they were warned before hand.

However, I would put both IRA & terrorism in Kashmir as terrorist attacks, since they target innocent civilians.

Answer 4

Terrorism is always wrong. The clue is in the name. A freedom fighter attacks, government oppression (the government and soldiers) a Terrorist attacks innocent people, civilians. My father served in the British army for 17 years and fought terrorists in many countries. He served in Ireland when it was at its worst in the 70s, and seen things you don't hear about on the news. He also fought in Indonesia where he walked through peaceful villages and walked back a few days later to find the villages decimated. A Terrorist will find an excuse to murder. There has to be something wrong with a person who wants to become a terrorist, as there is no justifiable reason for killing other than to save the lives of your family and yourself. If a Terrorist doesn't have a cause, he/she will find one.

Answer 5

you would also have to say the same about the American Revolution...they could have been considered terrorist. But I dont think people have a clear definition of what terrorism is. The ONLY time someone should be labeled a terrorist is when they kill people that had nothing to do with why you are angry. Such as the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Columbine Shootings. There are many other examples but it would take too long to say. So I guess it depends on the situation. If we had an oppressive government and I had a family member who was one who chose to rebel, I dont think I would turn him in as long as his focus was on the government and not bystanders.

Jesus is Lord.

Answer 6

I'm sorry but i disagree with you. If anyone in my family or even my hole family was a terrorist you bet your as s i would call the police for them i wouldn't even let the police find them. if terrorism is OK for your family then i guess you agree with murder, rape, child abuse, sexual assault, the hole 9 yards. honestly whats the difference? any on the above is destroying someones life just like terrorism whether the terrorist paralyzes someone or kills someone, somebody else is always affected. For every action there is a reaction. 9/11 affected the entire world everyone knows someone who is American who knows someone whose in the military, new york, on the planes. Its just not right, and it's unlawful. If terrorism is OK then so it rape right? That's pretty much what your saying which is sick. Your also saying that if a relative raped someone you would be OK with that which would in turn make u a suspect. Yes family before the state under certain circumstances. I 100% feel that you wrong and you need to be dropped on your head a few times to open you eyes! lol no offense!

Answer 7

I think terrorism is a term that is overused and not helpful. A "war on terrorr" is impossible to define and almost impossible to pursue. It would be better if we defined the people opposing us ,(currently the radical islamic groups), as "the enemy" instead of terrorists. This would give us the freedom to go against the infrastructure and support systems of these groups.
In 1939 Britian did not declare war on Nazism, it declared war on Germany. It would have been impossible to pursue a war where every German killed or captured had to be shown to be a nazi. It is the nature of war that innocent people are killed, interned or made refugees.
If we must engage in a war, the best thing we can do, for our enemies as well as ourselves, is to end it as swiftly as possible. The way the current war is being fought we could see deaths and atrocities lasting decades.

Answer 8

I can understand where you are coming from but - These Muslim Extremists are a new Breed of Maniac.. The IRA for example - have ceased terrororism activites - as they have achieved their objective - a wee bit more of a say in the running of Northern Ireland for the Catholic communities.. The Muslims on the other hand want World Domination .. and I am afraid that is just not on..

Answer 9

Firstly we should define what you mean as "wrong". Wrong to who? What is wrong to you may not be wrong to me. On a fundamental level i believe that an attack on any innocent human being is wrong and therefore answers your questions.
However, i think you are also trying to ask if Muslim terrorists are "wrong" when other groups in the past (normally led/trained by the West) have not been terrorists.
I think this is the main problem with the world today - lack of a level playing field. Does this make sense? who knows. I hope you find the truth.

Answer 10

All I can say is to remind you of the old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And I agree that the IRA is a very good example. The US government covertly supported the IRA and overtly allowed NORAID to support them while the British government declared them terrorists. I think there is allot of "kettle calling pot black" nowadays.
It is likely that there will be allot of controversy surrounding any question on perceived terrorism around the world. Feelings run VERY high.