Is it right to ever support Terrorism?

[Trytostaydead]

Of course at every campus there are people on every pole of the spectrum when it comes to the Middle East, and especially those dealing with Israel.

First, let me say I think both sides are idiotic and a wall needs to be built around them all and let them take care of themselves so it stops affecting the rest of the world.

But that being said, when someone brings up the issue of suicide bombers, kidnappings, etc.. there're always a few who say that such action is justified, not terrorism but fighting for liberation, etc.

So regardless of politics though, is it morally right to support such a line of action?

[Darth Wong]

Plenty of people support state terrorism. I mean honestly, who's really so naive that he doesn't think that one of Israel's unstated objectives in its current campaign is to teach the Lebanese people a lesson?

[Lord Woodlouse]

As a tactic, not really. But some end objectives of terrorists are more understandable than others, certainly.

[Darth Servo]

Remember, terrorism is only terrorism when the OTHER side does it. When its your OWN side is "freedom fighting"

[CJvR]

Remember, terrorism is only terrorism when the OTHER side does it. When its your OWN side is "freedom fighting"

No it isn't. Terrorism is terrorism even when it is your own side doing it. The PR division might spinn it enough to fool some but it is still terrorism.

[NecronLord]

Do you condemn the Marquis and the various other anti-nazi terrorist movements as evil terrorists who should just give up and go home? If you do, there's probably something wrong with you.

[Darth Servo]

Remember, terrorism is only terrorism when the OTHER side does it. When its your OWN side is "freedom fighting"

No it isn't. Terrorism is terrorism even when it is your own side doing it. The PR division might spinn it enough to fool some but it is still terrorism.

I was being sarcastic.

[wolveraptor]

I always understood terrorism to include the infliction of casualties onto the civillian populace. Therefore, the only way such actions could be justified would be if the consequences of not acting in such a manner would be far worse. One example might by Orwell's totalitarian government of Oceania. When interviewing Winston and Julia, O'Brian informs the pair that they will be required to commit heinous acts of violence and terrorism. However, in that scenario, there really is no other alternative. One has two options: to engage in the Brotherhood's acts of villainy, or to allow The Party to rule forever.

In other words, I believe that only extreme scenarios warrant the destruction of innocent lives.

[Wicked Pilot]

You should judge people by their actions, not by their labels.

[Elaro]

If by "terrorism" we mean "intentional targeting of non-combatants in order to make a political/religious/etc. etc. statement" then no, terrorism is indefensable. However, the subject of debate becomes recognizing what is terrorism, and what is not.

[Darth Wong]

If by "terrorism" we mean "intentional targeting of non-combatants in order to make a political/religious/etc. etc. statement" then no, terrorism is indefensable. However, the subject of debate becomes recognizing what is terrorism, and what is not.

Sounds like you're getting ready to split hairs.

I have always wondered how someone can argue that he was not targeting civilians if he used a particular type of weapon on a particular type of target in such a manner that civilian casualties were inevitable. Is it OK to kill huge numbers of civilians if you can argue that you were killing a few enemy soldiers at the same time? How is this different from killing civilians in order to achieve strategic goals, such as pressuring an enemy to withdraw because of domestic politics?

[Noble Ire]

"Terrorism", as it is generally understood, is most certainly not moral, under any circumstance. Killing innocent civilians, even if their deaths mean that a greater number of other innocents live, is not a moral act, even if it may be a justfiable one. Of course, war is not moral either, especially not modern wars, where impoverished civilians bear so much of the death toll. However, though it is not moral, I believe that war is sometimes necessary, as a last restort true, but needed nonetheless. There are some things that are worth fighting for, either in terms of one's own life, country, or humanity itself.

Does this mean that "terrorism" is also justified, though? It is a reasonably effective tactic in war depending upon its usage, and sometimes essential against occupying forces or greater miltiaries. Civilians always have and always will be the weak point of any nation's war machine, espeically one that professes to care about things like human rights. Nevertheless, I do not feel that the deliberate endangerment of innocents (almost any non-combatants; the excuse "they were helping support the enemy" is worthless apologism), through either direct targeting, or strategic policies that will lead to an increase of civilian casualties beyond the point of what is necessary for a conventional military campaign to work, is right. It is certainly not moral, as outlined above, but more than that, it deminishes any gains the tactic might yield in the end, sometimes utterly nullifying them.

All this having been said, good things can come from "terrorism". Many of the first soldiers of the United States were terrorists, even if Tory execution was mercifully uncommon among them. Rebel cells all across Europe that struck at the Nazis during WWII. Sherman's infamous March to the Sea, which destroyed so many lives and brought the Confederates to their knees. Even the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which may have traded the lives of hundreds of thousands for millions, Japanese and American alike. These acts all had postive results, and I do not discount them for their price. But it still does not make those crimes justifiable, not morally, not at all, and they should never be repeated. It is the duty of soldier and general alike not only to win a war, but to defend the principles for which that war is being fought; to do anything less is, in a way, admitting defeat.

[weemadando]

To quote an essay of mine from the University course: "Terror, Conflict and Global Disorder".

Terrorism is the use or threat of violence, by any party or individual to achieve a political objective.

The key word there is political. That remains the best definition I've been able to find or write. And I wrote that 2,000 word essay trying to define terrorism.

[Lord Woodlouse]

If by "terrorism" we mean "intentional targeting of non-combatants in order to make a political/religious/etc. etc. statement" then no, terrorism is indefensable. However, the subject of debate becomes recognizing what is terrorism, and what is not.

Sounds like you're getting ready to split hairs.

I have always wondered how someone can argue that he was not targeting civilians if he used a particular type of weapon on a particular type of target in such a manner that civilian casualties were inevitable. Is it OK to kill huge numbers of civilians if you can argue that you were killing a few enemy soldiers at the same time? How is this different from killing civilians in order to achieve strategic goals, such as pressuring an enemy to withdraw because of domestic politics?

Hair splitting becomes inevitable when we're talking about war. Modern war is so heavily tied in with civilian infrastructure that most of it means inevitable civilian casualties. It's generally universally agreed that a force should use the tactic which least effects civilians (assuming the tactic itself is necessary to execute your war). The part where the debate starts tends to be the question of whether that means using a tactic that includes more military losses to bring about less civilian casualties. That's an argument that can be applied to most of the controversial situations raised.

Terrorism is the tactic of deliberately targeting civilians to cause terror. I don’t think it’s splitting hairs all that much to define a difference between that and military strikes with high civilian losses. Which does not mean, of course, that those military strikes are not morally flawed in themselves.

[Darth Wong]

Terrorism is the tactic of deliberately targeting civilians to cause terror.

So what do you call it when planes blow up water treatment plants and electricity generating stations, knowing that the loss of such facilities will inevitably mean thousands of civilian deaths from exposure and disease? Starting with children and the elderly?

I don’t think it’s splitting hairs all that much to define a difference between that and military strikes with high civilian losses. Which does not mean, of course, that those military strikes are not morally flawed in themselves.

What general philosophical ethics rule are you basing this upon?

[Lord Woodlouse]

So what do you call it when planes blow up water treatment plants and electricity generating stations, knowing that the loss of such facilities will inevitably mean thousands of civilian deaths from exposure and disease? Starting with children and the elderly?

A terror strike? *shrug*

What general philosophical ethics rule are you basing this upon?

I'm not. Do I need to?

[Darth Wong]

What general philosophical ethics rule are you basing this upon?

I'm not. Do I need to?

Yes you do. This isn't the "make up whatever quasi-ethical argument comes to mind" forum. If you're going to say that something is right or wrong, you should be able to state some kind of general ethics principle in play, for fuck's sake. Why do I even have to explain this?

Do you think that human life is the prime value? Do you think that ethics are based upon character traits? What exactly do you base this valuation on, where it's OK to kill hordes of civilians as long as you claim that there is some military purpose?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sounds like a very utilitarian mindset, putting aside the suffering of humanity in one instance so as to help those suffering the bigger tyrant e.g. the deaths of a dozen innocents in 1st world country A via a terror attack is able to offset the thousands of innocents suffering all the time in third world country B. I have seen people condone such acts when against well off nations, if only because they'd affect that society less than one that is practically anarchistic.

Or, put another way, you can try and justify terrorism as the only practical choice in fighting oppression (although the ideology behind the uprising will vary and so will the acceptability of the movement to global society) when a standing army is not feasible and all routes of diplomacy have been exhausted.

It's a very hard thing to nail down with one definition, because you will always run into that same problem of some finding it okay to use terrorist tactics for a given cause, while others abhor such a move.

[Lord Woodlouse]

What general philosophical ethics rule are you basing this upon?

I'm not. Do I need to?

Yes you do. This isn't the "make up whatever quasi-ethical argument comes to mind" forum. If you're going to say that something is right or wrong, you should be able to state some kind of general ethics principle in play, for fuck's sake. Why do I even have to explain this?

Do you think that human life is the prime value? Do you think that ethics are based upon character traits? What exactly do you base this valuation on, where it's OK to kill hordes of civilians as long as you claim that there is some military purpose?

I never argued that it was right to kill hoards of civilians in pursuit of a military purpose (unless, potentially, we're talking about something that could literally win a war. Perhaps). I'm not even saying that one action from one tactic is universally better than one action from the other. I'm just stating that there is a difference between the two, and I consider it more than just hair splitting.

Given equal civilian loss I consider the terrorist strike more morally reprehensible than a strike which is designed to destroy a genuine military target. The results might be comparable, but I certainly think the ethics of the person perpetrating the action itself are less if it is their implicit aim to kill civilian life to make people scared rather than their aim to destroy a military target of an enemy, knowing some people will die in the process.

Intent should certainly have at least SOME bearing on ethics, don't you think? Otherwise we would surely find murder, manslaughter and accidental deaths (shall we say a botched medical operation) all equal.

I think it's certainly possible that a military strike can be more unethical than a dedicated terrorist strike. Dresden is a fairly unethical strike, the destruction of an entire cities population for virtually no military gain. Worse than most terrorist strikes, I'd say. Though I say that with 20-20 hindsight.

[The Guid]

I would argue that Dresden was terrorism. The explicit aim of the British bombing in the second world war was to demoralise the German people. I can't see it being anything other than terrorism.

[Darth Wong]

I never argued that it was right to kill hoards of civilians in pursuit of a military purpose (unless, potentially, we're talking about something that could literally win a war. Perhaps). I'm not even saying that one action from one tactic is universally better than one action from the other. I'm just stating that there is a difference between the two, and I consider it more than just hair splitting.

And what is the general ethics principle in play, for fuck's sake? Do you have some kind of goddamned reading comprehension problem?

Given equal civilian loss I consider the terrorist strike more morally reprehensible than a strike which is designed to destroy a genuine military target. The results might be comparable, but I certainly think the ethics of the person perpetrating the action itself are less if it is their implicit aim to kill civilian life to make people scared rather than their aim to destroy a military target of an enemy, knowing some people will die in the process.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, WHY?

Why is the destruction of a "military target" a more ethically acceptable reason to kill the same number of people as the achievement of a political goal, which (after all) is the overall reason for wars in the first place?

Intent should certainly have at least SOME bearing on ethics, don't you think? Otherwise we would surely find murder, manslaughter and accidental deaths (shall we say a botched medical operation) all equal.

False analogy. "Collateral damage" is not an accident. They know beforehand that civilians will die, so it is every bit as intentional as any other kind of murder. It's like an arsonist saying that he only intended to burn down the home and not kill the people inside. That won't fly before a jury, and neither would this in a just world.

Besides, how the fuck do you judge that the "intent" of destroying military targets and civilians in order to achieve political goals is ethically superior to the "intent" of destroying civilians in order to achieve political goals?

I think it's certainly possible that a military strike can be more unethical than a dedicated terrorist strike. Dresden is a fairly unethical strike, the destruction of an entire cities population for virtually no military gain. Worse than most terrorist strikes, I'd say. Though I say that with 20-20 hindsight.

Ultimately, all military tactics are intended to achieve political objectives, and collateral damage is just as "intentional" as direct targeting.

[wolveraptor]

Intent should certainly have at least SOME bearing on ethics, don't you think? Otherwise we would surely find murder, manslaughter and accidental deaths (shall we say a botched medical operation) all equal.

Yes, but how big a component should it be? To paraphrase Darth Wong, "What if your intent was to kill a platoon of 50 soldiers, so you use some extremely powerful explosive, and, in the process, kill 100 civilians? Is that worse than deliberately targeting 10/20 civillians for the purpose of terror?"

[Lord Woodlouse]

I would argue that Dresden was terrorism. The explicit aim of the British bombing in the second world war was to demoralise the German people. I can't see it being anything other than terrorism.

Depends on who's story you hear. I've heard military justifications for the bombing before. Which, to get to the issue at hand, does not make the action ethical.

[wolveraptor]

I personally think that Utilitarian ethics should come into play. If you kill 100 civillians in an attempt to kill 50 soldiers, it's still worse than one who intentionally kills 20 civillians. You have caused a greater amount of damage, and it becomes especially indefensible if you knew there was a risk to non-combatant life (which is the case 99% of the time).

[The Guid]

I would argue that Dresden was terrorism. The explicit aim of the British bombing in the second world war was to demoralise the German people. I can't see it being anything other than terrorism.

Depends on who's story you hear. I've heard military justifications for the bombing before. Which, to get to the issue at hand, does not make the action ethical.

Dresden is a city. Its not, therefore, a military target. I can't say I'm having difficulty with this concept.