2006-12-09 11:20:44 · 16 answers · asked by george 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No George.
And don't say Im either with you or with them!
2006-12-12 01:33:54 · answer #1 · answered by Vaakshri 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism is a over-worked, over-used and abused word. Basically it's a label for anybody the US wants to have a crack at. The IRA are terrorists, Nelson Mandela was classified as a terrorist. They have also often been called freedom fighters - depending on your point of view. So in each case you have to look at what these groups are fighting for and how. The Kurds were terrorists to Iraq. But we don't like Iraq so the Kurds are promoted to be freedom fighters. Basically non-government groups with a grievance (and usually pretty large and important ones) find that political and social avenues are closed or unfruitful to their protest, and step outside the law. This gesture alone is important - imagine leaving your work, life, family behind to fight for something you believe in. So take terrorists seriously and have a look at the situation they are protesting about to make your own mind up.
2006-12-10 05:43:55 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel J 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, because a pacifist would have obvious discrepancies with both terrorism and "fighting." Therefore we can conclude that one could take a stance against both terrorism and fighting terrorism. A better question to ask your self would be, "if I am against terrorism, how do I propose we find a non-violent solution to ending terrorism?"
2006-12-09 19:47:16 · answer #3 · answered by danyfell 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Some would say WE were the terrorists when 200 years ago we dumped a boatload of tea into the Boston harbor, or when we slaughter masses of Native Americans. Or maybe kept African Americans as slaves. Terrorism depends on what side of the fence you are on.
2006-12-09 19:31:02 · answer #4 · answered by lonijean 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To say no to terrorism means I'm not going to participate in terrorism and thereby you are helping the cause of those who are fighting terrorist. But NO you are not supporting those who say they are fighting against it.
2006-12-09 19:29:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, this is a question of where you direct energy, being against something focuses energy on the very thing you are against...you may have noticed that the war on drugs increased drug use. Be pro something, be pro peace for example, that will be far more effective than fighting against it
2006-12-12 17:26:54 · answer #6 · answered by steve w 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
First of all, supporting them at all means you support their other opinions, which have nothing to do with it.
Second of all, many people obviously would not want more death caused by terrorism in a senseless war.
2006-12-09 19:29:51 · answer #7 · answered by shmux 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if they are actually fighting against it, and not committing acts of terror themselves.
2006-12-10 00:13:48 · answer #8 · answered by Right On 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no,
just because you think it is wrong to blow up innocent people dosen't mean you have to support any governments war or campaign or that you agree with everything everybody else who says no to terrorism does.
2006-12-09 19:28:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would think that you have no idea what terrorism is.
2006-12-09 20:04:54 · answer #10 · answered by Alan Turing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not at all! i hate terrists as do most of the world! But also i hate fighting and wars on places! Just look at iraq! usa and shithouse britian followed they caught saddam and still the army is staying to fight for no reason people getting klilled and the "power people" bush and blair set at home and laugh about it! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME
2006-12-09 19:26:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋