English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please give a detailed answer.

2006-10-30 02:14:56 · 8 answers · asked by Alein 2 in Education & Reference Other - Education

8 answers

Kicking rear to gain the mass once known as 'The British Empire' was allegedly justified...all the way until 1956, I believe when the Suez Crisis made us a laughing stock.
Come on...people do not become 'terrorists' (the 21st century meaning thereof) because it's a fashion. Of course the western world are vexed at the little man taking the gun and defending themselves, but in the old concept of 'history', we were all at it at some time or other,

2006-10-30 02:31:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes, because it all depends on what you deem to be terrorism.

George Washington - greatest American patriot?? At the time, do you think the English would badge him as a terrorist (as terrorism is defined today). I think they would.

If the UK had been successfully invaded by Germany during WWII. Would any rogue cells, fighting for the restoration of the British be considered terrorists? Yes they would. Would they be justified in using terror tactics - yes, they would.

Is the terrorism we see in the world today justified - I don't think it is, but I can understand what drives people to these levels, but I can't justify, on any level, the illegal war which is fuelling hatred in the Middle East and around the world.

2006-10-30 02:25:21 · answer #2 · answered by mark 7 · 1 0

The question is tough. while you're talking approximately terrorism that's directed at harmless human beings, then it extremely is tough to declare the way it ought to be justified. despite the fact that, while you're talking approximately issues we ought to call "terrorism" yet are rather performing against a state, it ought to be justified if, and provided that, that state is oppressive. despite the fact that, such acts are not consistently seen terrorism. for occasion, blowing up a preschool can't be justified, yet blowing up the homestead of a dictator ought to be. despite the fact that, terrorism is often labeled via the impact is has on the inhabitants, no longer unavoidably via the objective itself. interior the occasion I merely used, the 2d strategies ought to easily be stated as an assassination. So, your argument fairly hinges on terminology. Now, some have argued that any terrorism could be justified if it shakes human beings out of their apathy, and hence be a catalyst for social replace. Others have argued that terrorism could be justified if no harmless lives are lost (it extremely is consumer-friendly between eco-terrorists--they're going to injury SUVs, unfastened scientific examine animals, and injury housing advancements, yet they infrequently certainly reason actual harm to each physique interior the approach). despite the fact that, morality is often merely as in contact in the flexibility using fact the ends, so it extremely is tough to declare what human beings propose via "justified" in those contexts.

2016-11-26 19:15:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You'll have to ask Nelson Mandela.
It depends on who wins the war - terrorists become freedom fighters.

2006-10-30 02:23:45 · answer #4 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 0 0

Remember :-
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

A quotation from Harold Wilson (late Prime Minister of the UK)

I think that this quotation says it all ! Short and Succinct.

2006-10-30 02:27:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Any regular army is just terrorists in matching clothes.

2006-10-30 09:07:23 · answer #6 · answered by El Fuser 1 · 0 0

one mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter.

2006-10-30 02:41:53 · answer #7 · answered by Boadicea 3 · 0 0

no way plain and simple

2006-10-30 02:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers