Is resorting to violence ever justified?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Is resorting to violence ever justified?

The recent Somalia pirate shitstorm thread got me to thinking not about the pirates, but about terrorist groups.

 

So I got to ask:

 

Is terrorism ever justified? If so under what conditions?

 

 

The reason I ask is the French Resistance could be classified as a terrorist group.

 

I also ask this because people say if the terrorists applied skeptisim or critical thinking skills, they wouldn't resort to it, but from what I've seen, terrorists seem to be highly educated. Many with graduate degrees.

 

Also, the people who say that don't live where the terrorists do [Lebanon, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Russia] etc....

 

 

Are any tactics against terrorism justified? What tactics aren't?

 

The recent offensive in Gaze by Israel, I believe 50% of the causilties were civilian. Is it worth killing civilians if it means getting the terrorists?

 

 

 

 

 


peterweal
peterweal's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-06-08
User is offlineOffline
I think it all depends on

I think it all depends on the circumstances.

It's not a very helpful answer. Sorry.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
It depends on who the victim

It depends on who the victim is and who the terrorist is. If the terrorist is a powerful nation, or a client state of that nation, or an individual or group acting in the interest of that nation then it's okay. But if the terrorist is someone else then it's only okay if the victim is not that powerful nation or its client states, or groups or individuals acting in the interest of that nation.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Is the US a terrorist state ?

    Well first off we got to take a look at who is defining the word terrorist.Way back during the revolutionary war,Britain said that we (US) were terrorist,but we seen ourselves as freedom fighter's.Here is a good debate concerning violence  www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm  State violence is quite different than say the slave revolt,which was violent and justified.Now back to state violence  www.killinghope.org/    and www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html  I hope that this will help you with your question  

Signature ? How ?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
This is a really difficult

This is a really difficult question to answer, because violence can't be justified as much as it can be rationalized. State violence is rationalized as "diplomacy by other means", to quote von Clausewitz. Some people actually believe that.

In terms of personal violence, I personally don't believe it can be justified, but the source of personal violence is not a rational impulse. If, for example, someone I loved were kidnapped, I wouldn't care if I was justified in burning down the world to find them. I wouldn't be justified in all the pain and suffering I would doubtless cause, but I don't think that would bother me one bit.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The vast majority of warfare

The vast majority of warfare is terrorism. It's kind of the whole point. Nagasaki and Hiroshima stand as the single greatest example of terrorism in all of human history. And it was a successful terrorism too, as Japan folded almost instantly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
  wouldn't be sure where

  wouldn't be sure where to start here but terrorist acts can be justfied in my opinion. Not all oviously. The apartheid resistance was a terrorist organisation but im sure most here would say it was justified. but really I wouldn't have a clue where you would draw the line. I think it's more about perspective on wether is is justified. I can't see a way to determine with is justified and witch are not, individual examples yeah probably you can but as a whole no don't think so.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3593
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 I don't consider all acts

 I don't consider all acts of politically motivated violence to be the same.  It depends upon how the violence is employed and against whom.  Methodology is the key word.

 Regardless of the cause being fought for, if army "A" has a policy of killing its captured prisoners instead of providing them with at least minimal shelter and sustenance, the that is a form of terrorism. 

  If army "B" engages in systematic rape of female civilians then that is a form of terrorism.

 Likewise;

  If army "A" attempts to kill only those who carry arms against them, I do not consider that an act of terrorism.

 If army "B" while engaged in an artillery barrage seeks to avoid destroying enemy hospitals I do not consider that an act of terrorism.

 

  Of course every hypothetical scenario that I proposed resulted in intentional killing ( which should be a last resort ).  The examples given where the various armies seeked to only engage armed combatants, attempted to avoid destroying non-military targets, refused to abuse or kill civilians or prisoners...these would all be examples of deliberately lethal warfare but lethality coupled to a desire to limit unnecessary and/or needless killing. 

  Acts of terrorism are not meant to acheive a military victory in the conventional sense.  Torturing a prisoner to death does not incapicitate the enemy's ability to wage warfare.  It is meant to emotionally traumatize and weaken resolve ( terrorism can sometimes backfire upon the perpetrators and actually strengthen the enemy's desire to exact retribution... as the Nazis painfully discovered after having brutalized the Russian population )  Acts of terrorism are a psychological tool that harnesses normal human revulsion toward acts of extreme cruelty.  Useful perhaps but morally repugnant to the majority of humanity.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaE66cl4Bz8


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 If some individual or

If some individual or group is determined to cause some major harm, is impervious to reason or diplomacy, and we have no available means to restrain them from their intended actions, and violent action directed at them seems the only possible way to prevent them going through it, and there is a reasonable prospect that the nett result of our violent preventative action will result in less overall harm than failed attempts at restraining them by other means, then I think we have a moral obligation to use violence against them.

The obvious example to which this probably applied were the actions against Adolf Hitler in WWII, and almost certainly the fight against the Japanese in the same period.

That doesn't excuse individual actions against either enemy which arguably caused more deaths than necessary, such as the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or at least the second atomic bomb on Japan.

And of course there will typically be enormous uncertainties as to the outcomes of any such actions, but as long as the best efforts are made to do the estimates, and still strongly suggest that not at least attempting to stop them by appropriate means (eg nukes against Somalia would hardly be appropriate), then I see no moral problem with such action.

It would only be the absolutist moral prescriptions typically associated with religious faiths which would have a problem here, but that just is another reason why traditional faith-based 'moral' codes are often worse than useless in the real world.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not so much talking

Vaset wrote:

 

The vast majority of warfare is terrorism. It's kind of the whole point. Nagasaki and Hiroshima stand as the single greatest example of terrorism in all of human history. And it was a successful terrorism too, as Japan folded almost instantly.

 

I'm not so much talking about a war between two legal governments. I mean if one side is "outlawed" as in not a legal government fighting against a legal government.

 

 

Of course, not that governments can't commit terrorist acts such as Hamas for example.

 

 Though whether or not that government should be in power is another story.

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I'm not

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


I'm not so much talking about a war between two legal governments. I mean if one side is "outlawed" as in not a legal government fighting against a legal government.

 

The funny thing is how that distinction is made in first world countries. You'd also have to determine the difference between "terrorism" (inducing terror) and "shock and awe" (inducing terror). If it's a "we're an actual government" thing, then you'd be agreeing with von Clausewitz that it's just "diplomacy by other means". But if you see it as groups of people, then it becomes more and more difficult not to imagine that all of it is completely childish.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If some

BobSpence1 wrote:

If some individual or group is determined to cause some major harm, is impervious to reason or diplomacy, and we have no available means to restrain them from their intended actions, and violent action directed at them seems the only possible way to prevent them going through it, and there is a reasonable prospect that the nett result of our violent preventative action will result in less overall harm than failed attempts at restraining them by other means, then I think we have a moral obligation to use violence against them.

 

But who decides this?

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If some individual or group is determined to cause some major harm, is impervious to reason or diplomacy, and we have no available means to restrain them from their intended actions, and violent action directed at them seems the only possible way to prevent them going through it, and there is a reasonable prospect that the nett result of our violent preventative action will result in less overall harm than failed attempts at restraining them by other means, then I think we have a moral obligation to use violence against them.

But who decides this?

That is of course a practical problem - hopefully not one individual, but some sort of consensus, if possible. Whatever, I am laying out what should be the basis of any decision, as distinct from, say, appeals to religious doctrine.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Violence is acceptable in

Violence is acceptable in the defence of yourself or others.

It can only be acceptable if there are no other methods of preventing other peoples violence . As far as I'm concerned capital punishment is murder as restraint options exist and there is no genuine case of self defence

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Vaset

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Vaset wrote:

 

The vast majority of warfare is terrorism. It's kind of the whole point. Nagasaki and Hiroshima stand as the single greatest example of terrorism in all of human history. And it was a successful terrorism too, as Japan folded almost instantly.

 

I'm not so much talking about a war between two legal governments. I mean if one side is "outlawed" as in not a legal government fighting against a legal government.

But who determines who is lawful and who isn't? There's no global consensus on such laws, and there never has been, so global laws have no bearing. 

A government will outlaw any resistance force, but if the resistance force is successful, then it will be remembered as the side with legal authority.

There is also the propensity for laws to be unethical and immoral, such as slavery for example.

I think it is a matter of opinion as to who is acting lawfully in any conflict that has clearly identifiable sides, unless all sides have an agreement with each other before the conflict ensues. Anyone the US has warred upon in the last decade has been a victim of terrorism (justly or otherwise), since the US has started to refuse to acknowledge the legal and actual authority of governments that they don't like, and doesn't acknowledge the Geneva convention in regards to them. They are therefore equally justified in ignoring the Geneva convention in attacks on US citizens and property. There is therefore no laws overseeing these conflicts at all.

You give me any conflict in history and I can justify the actions of all sides within it. It's as simple as altering your point of view. I don't see any differences arise in the cold hard facts of a conflict simply because there is one or more governments involved instead of a organization(s) that seeks to form a government.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Terrorism is about as well

 Terrorism is about as well defined as God, unfortunately.

Historically, "terrorists" are often more properly defined as "those people who have some agenda not supported by acknowledged authorities who are using violence to achieve their goals."  Of course, that's just another way of saying, "Not the government," at least in a lot of cases.

Another way of defining "terrorist" would be this:  People who attack civilians, women and children, and other "innocents" while ignoring the international "code of war."  If this is the definition, the U.S. has often engaged in terrorism -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the most vivid, but certainly not the only example.

I could probably list several more definitions, but from my perspective, it seems like "terrorist" is just a word we use to justify our own position.  I don't mean the U.S. specifically.  I mean people in general.  Consider that under an oppressive fascist regime, people who use improvised explosive devices and attempt to overthrow the government from within are called "freedom fighters."  From the point of view of the established government, however, they're terrorists.  It gets trickier when it's not as clear cut.  When the U.S. went to war with Vietnam, they systematically commited various human rights violations against civilians.  They went through conquered villages raping and beating women.  They arbitrarily burned down homes.  Is that terrorism, or is it just collateral damage, since the U.S. was on the "right side"?  (I know... I know... That's why I used scare quotes.)

Oh, and Pineapple, I think you're exactly right about terrorists and education.  Many of them are quite intelligent.  What many people don't seem to comprehend is that when you put someone in a nearly impossible position, they'll do nearly anything they have to.  If a group feels oppressed and only has access to a few sticks of dynamite, the most logical (and some would say, most intelligent) thing to do is strap the dynamite to a smart bomb... a human who can pick the best time and place to kill the most people.  I'm not so sure that's a different animal than "conventional warfare."  If the Iraqis had bunker busters and mini-nukes and an advanced air force, they'd have used them in a more conventional way.  The fact is, all they had was weapons that are all but useless -- except for "terrorist style" activities.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So I got

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So I got to ask:

 

Is terrorism ever justified? If so under what conditions?

 

So I'm going to be the only one citing Star Wars as an example of acceptable terrorism?

 

Damn, that's embarrassing...........

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Oh, and

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh, and Pineapple, I think you're exactly right about terrorists and education.  Many of them are quite intelligent.  What many people don't seem to comprehend is that when you put someone in a nearly impossible position, they'll do nearly anything they have to.  If a group feels oppressed and only has access to a few sticks of dynamite, the most logical (and some would say, most intelligent) thing to do is strap the dynamite to a smart bomb... a human who can pick the best time and place to kill the most people.  I'm not so sure that's a different animal than "conventional warfare."  If the Iraqis had bunker busters and mini-nukes and an advanced air force, they'd have used them in a more conventional way.  The fact is, all they had was weapons that are all but useless -- except for "terrorist style" activities.

 

 

 

This was pretty much what I was trying to say.

 

 

 

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The recent Somalia pirate shitstorm thread got me to thinking not about the pirates, but about terrorist groups.

 

So I got to ask:

 

Is terrorism ever justified? If so under what conditions?

 

 

The reason I ask is the French Resistance could be classified as a terrorist group.

 

I also ask this because people say if the terrorists applied skeptisim or critical thinking skills, they wouldn't resort to it, but from what I've seen, terrorists seem to be highly educated. Many with graduate degrees.

 

Also, the people who say that don't live where the terrorists do [Lebanon, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Russia] etc....

 

 

Are any tactics against terrorism justified? What tactics aren't?

 

The recent offensive in Gaze by Israel, I believe 50% of the causilties were civilian. Is it worth killing civilians if it means getting the terrorists?

 

 

 

 

 

50% Civilians? Try 95% or more civilians.

Who the hell are the terrorists?

Israel's dropping bombs from F-16's on civiliams. White phosphorous on kids. Killing the elderly and kids for no reason, ADMITTEDLY. Committing War Crimes, ADMITTEDLY.

I think you need to examine whom you call terrorists.

In all of the recent 110 Katushkas launched, that precended the invasion inot the population of a city of over a million people, NO MORE THAN 4 Israel's were killed.

Moreover, the F-16's didn't try to stop the rocket fire!

The ADMITTELY, invaded Gaza to overthrow the deocratically elected government, Hamas!

Your implicit citation of the Palestinians as terrorists, and unbelievably inaccurate information / percentages, no matter how well spelled it may be, tells me that responding further to such ignorance is not worthwhile.

I strongly recommend you do some research on the stats, the admitted killing of innocents, what a terrorist is, how many were killed by Katushkas, what the STATED objectives of the Invasion of Gaza were, and what a Democracy is.

BTW. Don't make any assumptions as to my ethnic origins are, because you're gonna be WAY off base.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:So I'm going

Abu Lahab wrote:


So I'm going to be the only one citing Star Wars as an example of acceptable terrorism?

Damn, that's embarrassing...........

Pretty sure the whole "evil empire" idea came from the American Revolution anyway, so you could probably use that historical example instead. North Americans have an odd culture of siding with the underdog, unless the underdog happens to have any large amount of melanin in their skin.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:It depends on

Gauche wrote:

It depends on who the victim is and who the terrorist is. If the terrorist is a powerful nation, or a client state of that nation, or an individual or group acting in the interest of that nation then it's okay. But if the terrorist is someone else then it's only okay if the victim is not that powerful nation or its client states, or groups or individuals acting in the interest of that nation.

Exactly. See? Simple.

Gross, but simple.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: 50%

treat2 wrote:
50% Civilians? Try 95% or more civilians. Who the hell are the terrorists? Israel's dropping bombs from F-16's on civiliams. White phosphorous on kids. Killing the elderly and kids for no reason, ADMITTEDLY. Committing War Crimes, ADMITTEDLY. I think you need to examine whom you call terrorists. In all of the recent 110 Katushkas launched, that precended the invasion inot the population of a city of over a million people, NO MORE THAN 4 Israel's were killed. Moreover, the F-16's didn't try to stop the rocket fire! The ADMITTELY, invaded Gaza to overthrow the deocratically elected government, Hamas! Your implicit citation of the Palestinians as terrorists, and unbelievably inaccurate information / percentages, no matter how well spelled it may be, tells me that responding further to such ignorance is not worthwhile. I strongly recommend you do some research on the stats, the admitted killing of innocents, what a terrorist is, how many were killed by Katushkas, what the STATED objectives of the Invasion of Gaza were, and what a Democracy is.

 

 

If you took the time to read the actual topic, I was asking if and when violence was justified and how far we should go to stop terrorists.

 

Notice how there are question marks at the end of the sentences?

 

 

Quote:

BTW. Don't make any assumptions as to my ethnic origins are, because you're gonna be WAY off base.

 

Which are....?


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If some

BobSpence1 wrote:

If some individual or group is determined to cause some major harm, is impervious to reason or diplomacy, and we have no available means to restrain them from their intended actions, and violent action directed at them seems the only possible way to prevent them going through it, and there is a reasonable prospect that the nett result of our violent preventative action will result in less overall harm than failed attempts at restraining them by other means, then I think we have a moral obligation to use violence against them.

The obvious example to which this probably applied were the actions against Adolf Hitler in WWII, and almost certainly the fight against the Japanese in the same period.

That doesn't excuse individual actions against either enemy which arguably caused more deaths than necessary, such as the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or at least the second atomic bomb on Japan.

And of course there will typically be enormous uncertainties as to the outcomes of any such actions, but as long as the best efforts are made to do the estimates, and still strongly suggest that not at least attempting to stop them by appropriate means (eg nukes against Somalia would hardly be appropriate), then I see no moral problem with such action.

It would only be the absolutist moral prescriptions typically associated with religious faiths which would have a problem here, but that just is another reason why traditional faith-based 'moral' codes are often worse than useless in the real world.

Generally, a real nice response. I later realized having left out the issues off WWII, Dresden, Tokyo, A-Bomb, and necessity. Thanks for bringing those into the equation, as
they differenciate waht's been going on in the ME from WWII, and in so doing lead towards the issue of justification.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:treat2

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

treat2 wrote:
50% Civilians? Try 95% or more civilians. Who the hell are the terrorists? Israel's dropping bombs from F-16's on civiliams. White phosphorous on kids. Killing the elderly and kids for no reason, ADMITTEDLY. Committing War Crimes, ADMITTEDLY. I think you need to examine whom you call terrorists. In all of the recent 110 Katushkas launched, that precended the invasion inot the population of a city of over a million people, NO MORE THAN 4 Israel's were killed. Moreover, the F-16's didn't try to stop the rocket fire! The ADMITTELY, invaded Gaza to overthrow the deocratically elected government, Hamas! Your implicit citation of the Palestinians as terrorists, and unbelievably inaccurate information / percentages, no matter how well spelled it may be, tells me that responding further to such ignorance is not worthwhile. I strongly recommend you do some research on the stats, the admitted killing of innocents, what a terrorist is, how many were killed by Katushkas, what the STATED objectives of the Invasion of Gaza were, and what a Democracy is.

 

 

If you took the time to read the actual topic, I was asking if and when violence was justified and how far we should go to stop terrorists.

 

Notice how there are question marks at the end of the sentences?

 

 

Quote:

BTW. Don't make any assumptions as to my ethnic origins are, because you're gonna be WAY off base.

 

Which are....?

Soz if I misunderstood you, as you are indicating that I did.

I did in fact read your entire thread-post closely, and was addressing what appeared to be implicit suggestions that a STATE goes after INDIVIDUALS / or GROUPS of terrorists, implicitly suggesting (for example) Hamas.

I don't think I misunderstood the implicit nature of the questions, but it's POSSIBLE I did. It's alos possible you might have intended to express certain questions w/o any suggestion that States / Nations are NOT terrorists, but individuals and groups of people are terrorists... Perhaps,
(with some difficulty) the likelyhood of implicit suggestions might have been far reduced.

If I wrongly accused you of something. My appologies. If I didn't, then fuck off.

As to my ethnic origins... let's put it this way... this shit that Israel, and it's Fundamentalists do make me want to get a blood transfusion. --- I've no pity on a State that is killing itself, and that includes the U.S., where I've always lived. We deserve all the shit coming our way, in every way we asked for it. (Not to say I believe we deserved 9/11, nor that I'm taking the stance of a Fundamentalist), ... simply that our domestic and foreign political and economic policies have put us where we are, and we have been, are, and will be stirring up a honet's nest. --- Should another 9/11 happen I would be greatly saddend by it, but at some point after all the shit we're doing and getting into, the chickens are going to come home to roost, and in 10 to 15 years, it wond be the friggin Muslims in the ME, it's gonna be Americans that are gonna be screaming bloody murder here, and committing much more of it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So I got

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So I got to ask:

 

Is terrorism ever justified? If so under what conditions?

What do you mean by justified? There are actions which will inevitably cause the terrorism to appear somewhere. From that point of view, the terrorism is justified, because it's provoked. But at the same time, terrorism doesn't serve to undo the actions which caused it, so it's not an optimal, rational thing to do and thus it's not justified as a solution.
From that point of view, violence can't be justified, because the violence itself is a failure. But to cause violence is even greater failure. Why? Because we all are negatively affected by a presence of violence (and terrorism ) in the world. This is why there is a great need for harmlessness. We must learn to see humanity as one family and we must not set a violent causes into motion.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Are any tactics against terrorism justified? What tactics aren't?

There is a computer game. It shows a town full of little people. Some of them are marked as terrorists and the player is supposed to shoot them with missiles. But when a missile hits the terrorist and kills him, all the little people around the explosion becomes terrorists. I think this says a lot about the terrorism.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
  The recent offensive in Gaze by Israel, I believe 50% of the causilties were civilian. Is it worth killing civilians if it means getting the terrorists?
The terrorists themselves were civilians also. The most of Palestinian population were civilians, before they got invaded by superior force of USA-armed Jews and got almost wiped out in a few decades. Why? For the lebensraum. So obviously, the massacre in Gaza was an attempt to make the genocide of Palestinians a bit more complete. But the more violence there is, the more terrorists will get recruited.
I believe that the government of Israel is morally insane. No-one normal would murder 500 people to murder another 500 people they don't like. Prominent Jews from Britain and the rest of world condemned the actions of Israel publically and supported the protest marches.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:North

HisWillness wrote:

North Americans have an odd culture of siding with the underdog, unless the underdog happens to have any large amount of melanin in their skin.

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
In regards to the question

In regards to the question at hand, I believe we have to look at the circumstances, including the cause of the violence.

 

First, let us assume that violence has occurred. Second, let us assume that both parties have a reasonable self-interest in mind that is completely ethical (i.e. the parties are both countries with a claim to some resource inside their disputed borders). If this happens, then something has gone wrong in the process of debate and diplomacy--at any level. Ideally, if people have a dispute about something, they should debate it, and the person with the weaker argument should yield to the person with the stronger, as he is "locked in irons" and must agree. However, if neither party has strong reasoning, or if the process of diplomacy simply breaks down or never occurs in the first place, violence may be the only means to settle the dispute.

Between countries, this results in war. Between individuals, it results in murder. Violence is a terrible thing. War is never desirable, and murder is certainly never desirable. The problem is, avoiding violence requires an agreement between two or more parties. They must each understand and agree that neither will resort to violence. If one party decides to use violence before the other, then they have committed an unethical act. They are doing something unreasonable in order to impose their will upon someone else. Now, both parties no longer have a reasonable, ethical claim in the dispute. Rather, one party has crossed the line into dis-reason, and the other has no choice but to  act to protect itself.

Therefore, I don't believe that "first" violence is ever justified. If there is peace before, and one party forces a state of war, then the party to force the state of war is always to blame. Furthermore, I do not believe "vengeance violence" is ever justified. If one party did violence to another in some way in the past, but no longer poses a threat to that party, then the victim has no right to do violence against the first. However, if the first party still poses a threat, then the victim has the right to resort to violence to defend itself against an unreasonable enemy. Finally, I do not believe that "total war" is justified in regards to nations. The ethical means of pursuit of a war is to destroy  the enemy's capability to harm you, and then to force the other to end all hostile operations against you. In this way, you restore a reasonable state of peace, while eliminating the threat to yourself. However, since World War I, or perhaps the American Civil War, war has resorted to a brute killing fest in which combatants simply destroy the enemy nation--including its civilians--and do not give the enemy mercy until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. This action will make it more likely for your party to win, but it is not necessary. Even if the enemy is killing off your civilians, that gives you no right to kill theirs. A similar conundrum arises in nuclear warfare, the most brutal and unjustified form of total war we are capable of.

Therefore, the only form of violence that is ever justified is violence in immediate defense. If the lines of communication, debate, and reason have broken down, and your enemy attacks you, you have no other choice but to defend yourself or to die. The enemy is attempting to impose its will unjustly over yours--perhaps even to end your life altogether--so if you have a reasonable self-interest in your own life, you should do what is in your power to prevent your own demise. Your goal, though, should not be to eliminate the enemy, but simply eliminate his means of killing you. If there is no other way to eliminate these means but killing the enemy, then so be it.

 


radikal
Posts: 15
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 The real question is: What

 The real question is: What is the difference between American bombing innocent civilians and terrorists bombing innocent civilians?  What difference does it make if its from the sky or from a guy with bombs strapped to his chest. America's bombings do far more damage than muslim terrorists.

 

 

 

 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I would guess the West would

I would guess the West would argue that they don't deliberately target civillians BUT its its utterly impossible to bomb cities without killing civilians not matter how clever people claim weapons are. So if you take an action where you are were basically guaranteed of killing civilians is there really any moral difference in targetting them deliberately


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I would agree that pure

I would agree that pure vengeance should never be a justification for inflicting harm and suffering on another person.

Which persons in a position of authority should also be held to.

Which is why such passages as

"And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."

"To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste."

"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."

etc are deeply evil.

What ever arguments the apologeticists make to explain what such passages 'really' mean, they validate the idea of  'vengeance'. Such disproportionate and vindictive assault is also certainly consistent with the 'normal' vision of Hell.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Vaset

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Vaset wrote:

 

The vast majority of warfare is terrorism. It's kind of the whole point. Nagasaki and Hiroshima stand as the single greatest example of terrorism in all of human history. And it was a successful terrorism too, as Japan folded almost instantly.

 

I'm not so much talking about a war between two legal governments. I mean if one side is "outlawed" as in not a legal government fighting against a legal government.

 

 

Of course, not that governments can't commit terrorist acts such as Hamas for example.

 

 Though whether or not that government should be in power is another story.

 

 

 

Self-defense would apply on an international and on a personal level.

That's not to say that there are not other circumstances that are somewhat related, such as the protection of another person or Country against a violent attack.

In some other cases, it might be required as a "learning tool." I'm not against a slap
in the behind when all else fails. However, I do believe it should rarely, if ever be necessary, as there are other teaching methods such as positive and non-violent negative re-enforcement techniques, aside from reasoning and explanation with children old enough to comprehend what's being said.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Is it

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Is it worth killing civilians if it means getting the terrorists?

FIRST, you need to define "terrorist."

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Depending where you "fall" on the matter, the next thing to consider is whether your plans benefit more poeple than they harm IN THE CONTEXT OF whether or not the intention of the "terrorists"
is to defend a terroristic society.

Lastly, the question remaining is: How many innocents were or will be killed by the terrorists if they are not stopped?


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
I would have to agree with

I would have to agree with treat2. "Terrorist" is a very loose definition. I could be considered a domestic terrorist by a lawyer, but I have no intention of hurting anyone. The whole definition is very subjective.

Just because I own enough guns and ammo to look crazy on paper doesn't mean I am going to hurt anyone. It usually takes strong religious views to make someone kill.

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."