do you think terrorism is an essential component to change?

Question

do you think terrorism is an essential component in the struggle for
those who are denied a voice in the real world as they experience it

Answer 1

No. Terrorism is killing innocent citizens in order to get attention. Killing innocents is never the right way to accomplish your goals, and it's never forgivable to intentionally kill innocents.

If your leaders are denying your voice and not treating you well, then you need to attack them.

.

Answer 2

Absolutely not.
Can Terrorism be a component? -yes
It is NOT essential though.
To say that people can't make deals and make changes peacefully is stupid. In fact, most changes are made peacefully.
If people want to have a voice in the world, killing innocent civilians is not the best way to get their point across. All that shows is that your thinking is unreasonable and therefore, your voice does not need to be heard anyway.
You can't expect people to start listening to you when you are killing them. All you can expect is retaliation and increased isolation.

I understand why this question has merit, though.

When the attacks came on Sept 11, we saw that there were some people out there who were really upset with some of the US policies. I think that maybe those people had been denied a voice in the world, and now everyone understands that. But the approach they used to show their dissatisfaction did far less to solve the problem than to aggravate it.

Terrorism can show that people feel that they have been marginalized, but it is not "essential" to showing the desire for a voice, nor is it "essential" to help solving the problem.

The problem with the question is the word "essential".

Terrorism is never essential to showing anything except a lack of reason.

Answer 3

If this country as you see it was attacked, and its goverment defeated, and lets say you liked the old goverment, and you highly hate the newer one, they impose radical changes in life, things you couldnt fathom. Like for example in the US, they try and tell everybody cant have guns.

And you see all these other people, laughing and joking and cuddling up to the invaders. What would you do. How would you see the other people?

Me personally If this had happened to me, I'd probably be a terrorist who saw all the people who flocked to the new goverment as traitors, and I would do all in my power to defeat the new govt. Destroy thier radio towers, roadside bombs to destroy convoys. And I would use bombs against the traitors, to scare them, and intimidate. Though I must say using them against children is wrong, and I would never target a child on purpose, it sometime happens.

This is how I see the terrorist, and this is why I think I understand them, yes it is an essential component to change, because they can't fight conventionally, and they dont have enough money to do anything politically, money is power in politics, Violence is allways power. There is no way they could fight a modern military head on, you know why? They would be annihilated piece meal, by air strikes and bombardments, that is why they strike from the shadows

Answer 4

I belive that terrorist belive that violence is the only way that they can be counted. Yes they see that the free world seems to have more , which in most cases very right . Their are injustices Americans alone consume most of the worlds natural resources and is always looking for more. Yes we have installed puppet governments to satisfy mostly our way of life and in turn bringing usually more money to the country we are helping. But it is a trade off. We have made alot of people angry at us. Isreal we will back right or wrong. In reality they came in and took lands that they say were god given to them but displaced many people that became angry over it. Its like a group of people who came into your area and said sorry this is ours and would kll you if you disagreed. They felt they had the right so they did it with our backing. Im sorry but this brought up bad feelings, some say get over it we are here to stay, some people cant and they fight. Martin luther King was non violent as well as Gandi and look at the strides they made. Untill people get into the mind set of that then trouble will always be on the horizon. I think that it could be done differently some dont.

Answer 5

Yes, but not for the reason you site, I think terrorism is a way to spark others into action others like president Bush and Tony Blair. The horific acts those like of Osama Bin Laden, greatly overshadow any message they may have been trying to convey. I, for one, don't know what that message was but I remember 9/11, the attack on the Cole, the '93 attack on the Towers, and every other dispickable act these people have carried out and I have only one notion towards them.......kill them all and let Alla sort them out!!

Answer 6

My answer is an no since Ganhdi and othera have displayed the power of peacefull protest. How could you argue the killing of innocent lives serves a purpose other than needless bloodshed? Two wrongs do not make a right I suggest you rethink your philosophy.

Answer 7

coz' both are the coolest starting up for being a valuable man or woman. as time passes with assistance from gaining knowledge of procedure retains, it desires to be as a lot as date with the change of situations & advancements on our each day lives, so with the nature of work, each and every thing is replacing with assistance from its direction.

Answer 8

Terrorism do not solve any problem, it creates lots of problems, so the main idea is to compel the world to accept to their interest by means of atrocities..

Answer 9

I don't think it's essential to change it. I think it's essential to eradicate it completely.

Answer 10

No, you cannot change a persons views by killing
them, if they are dead they cannot look at things
from your perspective, terrorism kills, and a lot of
the time innocent people......................................