When is terrorism justified? Can taking away someone's rights be justified?

[Kilgore Trout]

Are you seriously suggesting that because some people rationalize, rather than reason, all attempts at reason are somehow bogus? Come one now, be reasonable!

A valid attempt at reason is a process to find a conclusion.

A rationalization is a process to support a presumption.

To distinguish between these two requires a degree of honesty and awareness.

 

[Sunstone]

A valid attempt at reason is a process to find a conclusion.

A rationalization is a process to support a presumption.

To distinguish between these two requires a degree of honesty and awareness.

True, but irrelevant to my point.

 

[Nietzsche]

While you would know more about it than I would, I am inclined to think the findings of the US military were significant.

I find it unlikely the US Military would've continued using a tactic they knew didn't work. But they did, in Korea.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

True, but irrelevant to my point.

I think I missed your point. It is relevant to mine, in any case.

 

[sun rise]

I find it unlikely the US Military would've continued using a tactic they knew didn't work. But they did, in Korea.

Governments as well as individuals have a hard time changing and continue to do things that they should know don't work. People (and governments) are not rational actors.

 

[LuisDantas]

When is it justified to use terror tactics to achieve a goal? When does it become the obvious next step to take hostages or plant bombs? Is it possible to threaten civilians and still remain justified?

It would take having genuine cause to believe that it is a "them or us" situation, I think. One dire enough to make becoming a murderer or worse appear preferable to the alternative.

Is it possible? Perhaps if they are shooting back and there is no hope of convincing them otherwise. Big if.

Otherwise, only in sci-fi scenarios akin to a zombie apocalypse.

If you religion is being oppressed? If someone is mocking everything you hold sacred? Is it when you can see no other way to get your government to change it's stances on an issue that is of vital importance to you?

In and of themselves, those are, at the very least, odd things to complain about.

Religion is a private affair. Other people have no particular duty to lend it prestige. If it bothers me that they do not, them that is my problem, not theirs.

It is entirely possible for governments to be oppresive and that must be fought against. But the lines drawn have no reason to acknowledge any religious beliefs or doctrines.

In fact, they should actively avoid making such acknowledgements, lest they end up lending some religious doctrine the power to oppress those who do not share of it.

The other side of that coin might be when is it okay to take away the rights of your citizens? Can you ever reasonably justify taking away part of the right of privacy or free speech? Should we stop places like Saudi mosques from being opened in the western / eastern world?

Ultimately, despite a lot of willingness to claim otherwise, there are no citizen rights that might conceivably be taken of by someone. There is even a logical contradiction in the very idea.

People do not have "rights". Instead, we have the gifts that are given to us by ourselves and others.

Whether mosques (or any other temples) should be opened is entirely a matter of how much public acceptance those projects expect to have in their respective communities. Barring legitimate public concerns, it is not for any government to interfere, either pro or con.

Is there ever a time when it is okay to don the jackboot in the name of safety? Should you stop places like the westboro Baptist church from protesting at funerals or is that not far enough to warrant government intervention? When would the acts of a religious organization or their teachings warrant intervention?

When they violate civil peace and urban order. Westboro probably qualifies. So does KKK. So, apparently, do most Muslim-majority communities, mainly because they tend to expect undue privileges and assurances that end up translating into repression of non-Muslims.

Does it just fuel the fire when you try to strike back against an oppressive regime?

Nearly always. The trick is in, while doing so, also giving it reason to consider some other way.

In most situations that is a real challenge. Oppression has a way for denying itself alternatives.

Is it better to go about any protest peacefully?

It is always better to go peacefully. It is not always within our emotional, logistical and intellectual means to do so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which is easy to do.
You estimate that your techniques will result in fewer innocent people being attacked.
That's how the USA justified bombing Hiroshima. And "Shock and Awe" in Iraq.

All you do is redefine innocent people dying as unfortunately necessary collateral damage.
Tom

That may be easy to do, but using such low parameters is both deeply immoral and counterproductive.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well... "terrorist" by one worldview is "patriot" by another and "rabble-rouser" by still another, and "discontented activist" by yet another.

Some folk always reserve the right (for themselves) to commit any and all acts of violence against any and all comers, if they feel their lives are on the verge of extinction.

And if their lives actually are on such a verge, who am I to judge their response to the circumstances?

If you are threatened by armored tanks and aerial bombing, but all you have are improvised explosives, will you not use improvised explosive? On any target of opportunity?

I think you would -- I know *I* would, if the USA fell into a Red Dawn situation...

 

[David1967]

Almost by definition, terrorism involves attacking innocent people. So, for it to be justified, you would first need to justify attacking innocent people.

Good point. And I don't believe that attacking innocent people can be justified. I mean, if they are innocent they cant be responsible for a persons perceived wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no justification for terrorism

By the same token, there is no justification for creating terrorists

 

[Quintessence]

There were plenty of people who were comfortable in their own skin gassing the Jews. How do you deal with that?

What is it that I am supposed to deal with? There's an elaboration in my code that says something to the effect of "take care with the company you keep, for those whose sense of honor is counter to your own will be difficult to walk in step with." Odds are I would simply never call that person friend, presuming that such behaviors were core to their sense of character (which strikes me as quite unlikely). Not sure what else I am supposed to be dealing with, since anything else seems quite beyond my station: I am no judge of the people, no arbiter, no enforcer of law.

 

[leibowde84]

If you religion is being oppressed? If someone is mocking everything you hold sacred? Is it when you can see no other way to get your government to change it's stances on an issue that is of vital importance to you?

The oppression of religion is certainly NOT an excuse for targeting children or other innocent civilians. The mere mocking of religious beliefs or "everything you hold sacred" should be easily ignored without even coming close to violence of any kind. Freedom of expression includes both practicing a religion and criticizing religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

When is it justified to use terror tactics to achieve a goal? When does it become the obvious next step to take hostages or plant bombs? Is it possible to threaten civilians and still remain justified?

No. Terrorism is never justified. Targeting innocent civilians is almost never OK. There are, however, circumstances where civilians are not innocent, such as during WWII. And, obviously, collateral damage where civilians are killed accidentally when military targets or terrorists are actually the intended target.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no justification for terrorism

By the same token, there is no justification for creating terrorists

In regards to weapons in the middle east (Afghanistan specifically), we had our hearts in the right place. We provided weapons to the Afghans by necessity so they could stop the Soviet Union from targeting innocent civilians. We did a horrible job of helping to stabilize the country after Russia was defeated, but giving them weapons to defend themselves wasn't inherently wrong.

 

[Grumpuss]

Almost by definition, terrorism involves attacking innocent people. So, for it to be justified, you would first need to justify attacking innocent people.

Terrorists rarely view themselves as evil or hurting innocents.

Their view is that they are backed into a corner, doing the things of last resort. The people they bomb, shoot or stab are viewed by them not as "innocent", but as willing participants in the crimes against them. The idea is that the American, French or British government supports bombing ISIS, or giving money to Israel, or speaking against Iraq; so those people can share the punishment their government brought upon them.

It's quite a leap of logic, particularly if you believe in religion>state in your personal philosophy. Two planes hijacked by Islamic extremists crashed into skyscrapers that killed 3,000 people no doubt killed dozens, if not hundreds of fellow Muslims. The mental gymnastics required to forgive the killing of innocent Muslims must be impressive indeed.

 

[DavidFirth]

And as for justification for taking someone's rights away, certainly. We do it all the time when we sentence people to prison. The justifications being punishment, rehabilitation, and protection.

.

Prisoners in the US have rights, though. They get medical and dental without paying a dime, among other guaranteed rights.

If you don't think so just get locked up in a ME country and see what you get.

 

[Skwim]

Prisoners in the US have rights, though. They get medical and dental without paying a dime, among other guaranteed rights.

If you don't think so just get locked up in a ME country and see what you get.

The question is "Can taking away someone's rights be justified?" Not necessarily all of them---which if true would be their right to breathe, in effect killing the person and making the question moot---but the more logical: some of them.

.

 

[McBell]

Prisoners in the US have rights, though. They get medical and dental without paying a dime, among other guaranteed rights.

If you don't think so just get locked up in a ME country and see what you get.

Prisoners in the US have lost a bunch of rights.
Many people convicted in the USA lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives.
Some of them even lose their right to live.

 

[DavidFirth]

Prisoners in the US have lost a bunch of rights.
Many people convicted in the USA lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives.
Some of them even lose their right to live.

What about prisoners elsewhere that have zero rights? I know in Korea they used to put prisoners in deeply dug hole and chunk some lousy food in there every now and then.

If you are locked up you tend to worry about eating and health more than voting. Just saying.

 

[DavidFirth]

The question is "Can taking away someone's rights be justified?" Not necessarily all of them---which if true would be their right to breathe, in effect killing the person and making the question moot---but the more logical: some of them.

.

Agreed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Terrorism is a matter of perspective.
As so called, it's wrong.
It's right when by another name, eg, freedom fighting.

Moral relativism always puts a bee under the bonnet of absolutists, eh.