Is terrorism wrong?

Question

It was once said that - The only difference between between a terrorist organization and a government is - that a government has an air force and a terrorist organization doesn't. What is the difference between a government massacring innocent civilians in a massive bombing, and a terrorist blowing himself up while trying to take out a target, and, happens to kill lots of civilians at the same time? Why are government allowed to use the term collateral damage while terrorists are considered ( and rightly so) murderers?

"One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Answer 1

Yes, it is the most immoral thing on the planet.

Answer 2

Depends on what you mean by terrorism. Striking terror into the heart of your enemy- well every country in conflict (political conflict OR military conflict) will try terrorism to some extent. From one point of view, UN sanctions are terrorist acts.

If you mean using subversive warfare (bombs, random shootings) then most would consider it wrong, yes. But consider that any rebellion by a population against its government may require terrorism. Look at the Jews in Nazi Germany- they would steal weapons and attack German troops that came into their ghettos- is that wrong? If they didn't, they would be killed anyway. Anyone who calls themselves a 'freedom fighter' is a terrorist. It can't be said that all of the freedom fighters are wrong, so therefore it is just a matter of perspective.

Terrorism isn't just commited by subversive groups- America is definately using terrorist 'bully' methods in The War on Terror. Like i and others have said, it's perspective- what is wrong? how do we decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong? we're all corrupted by our lifestyles.

For all you (increasingly rare, i hope) devout christians out there- what would you do if Islam was top dog of world religion, and you felt it was slowly working against you? would you defend your faith? Would you strike out in anger at the citizens of the Islam world?

Answer 3

Let me put it this way - America was founded on terrorism.

The Boston Tea Party, and all that? Everyone likes to gloss over it, and tell about how heroic it was - but essentially, they were being terrorists. They were doing acts to strike terror in the hearts of people. The French Revolution, that gave France it's democracy, shed so much blood and the people did such terrrible things. During WWII, the Allied side was viewed as terrorists by the other sides - they did the exact same things as their enemies (save for the camps, but they didn't know about those at the time), and called it 'brave' when they did it, and 'cowardly' when the other side did it.

It's only because those sides won that we call them 'freedom fighters', and not 'terrorists'. It all depends on the side you're on.

Answer 4

There is a big problem with the definition of terrorism. For instance, if one country is invaded by another and thousands are killed in the process and a few die hard types infiltrate the invading country and set off bombs everywhere, this is called terrorism by the invaders and it is called counter attack by the die hard types. So it really depends on the individual.

Most people go along with their governments definition on this but a free thinking person like Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and many others are not fooled by propaganda. For instance, the motives for the invasion must be considered as well. That is why they say that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. And it is worth considering this when labelling people. Another consideration that I'm examining is that it is possible for a state, by its aggressive action to be called terrorist as well. So rather than say they are invaders, which is a bit vague, we can say it is a terrorist action. Anyone could call the UK and US action in Iraq a terrorist action.

Answer 5

I cant believe that there are so many people on here who dismiss this thread as "Duh of course terrorism is wrong"
History shows us that pretty much every nation on this earth have terrorised someone at some point. Great Britain created the concentration camp and terrorised the peoples in South Africa, the USA was founded on terrorism (Boston Tea Party etc..) need i go on..

What about all of the 'organisations' that tried to "free" their country from 'invading' countries (remember Northern Ireland belonged to Eire before GB 'invaded' are the IRA freedom fighters? can they be terrorists in their own country against an occupying force)

VERY Good thread, brave for getting it going.

Answer 6

It depends on what side you are on. In WW2 the french resistance were our allies but to the Germans they were terrorists.
There are lot's of examples like this just think about them, so you see it can be quite a difficult question to answer.
It seems to me it's the weak against the powerful that breeds terrorism

Answer 7

Have you sat back and contemplated the word TERRORism?
Think about it......?
If there were no terrorist acts around the world then government wouldn't have to send troops to defend affected countries.
End the terrorism and watch the world become a better place to live in....
The difference between terrorist and government,(well most government) is that government don't want to take over the world..terrorist do.

Answer 8

What is one persons Terrorism is another's Freedom Fighter.

Answer 9

I believe we will always have some form of terrorism, as most people are not willing to be dictated to by other people or governments and will go to any means to get there point of view listened too

Answer 10

"The difference between terrorist and government,(well most government) is that government don't want to take over the world..terrorist do."

Excuse me?!?!? I thought that was US foreign policy? Well the parts of any value anyway.

History is written by the winner, we have french freedom fighters as the allies won. If Germany had won they were terrorists. In fact they actually killed more French people than Germam so they were probably both. LIfe is seldom black and white.

Answer 11

Terrorism is bad but as hamas show there is a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.