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

[columbus]

Prisoners in the US have rights, though.

That's why the Bush administration sent all those people to Gitmo.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

I kind of try to live by "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but maybe that is just considered old hat in the 21st century.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's why the Bush administration sent all those people to Gitmo.
Tom

They didn't send everyone there, only a select few. And dint Obama correct That?

Let's not convict America over a few of Bush's mistakes.

 

[columbus]

They didn't send everyone there, only a select few.

It was a bunch of people from foreign countries that they didn't want to have any rights or process, not even international law.

Let's not convict America over a few of Bush's mistakes.

The fact that so many USonian people were OK with it, even applauded it is the indictment.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

It was a bunch of people from foreign countries that they didn't want to have any rights or process, not even international law.


The fact that so many USonian people were OK with it, even applauded it is the indictment.
Tom

Name 10 countries that give prisoners more rights than the USA.

 

[Sunstone]

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

You make a good point. However, the point I'm trying to make is on a different tack altogether. To illustrate, suppose you have 100 people. Now suppose 98 of them, for one reason or another, approach any discussion of terrorism irrationally. That does not logically prohibit the remaining two of them from seeking to approach their discussion of terrorism rationally. In fact, in real life, there do seem to be a relatively few people who approach discussions of terrorism in a rational manner. It is, of course, a value judgment whether one finds reason compelling.

 

[columbus]

Name 10 countries that give prisoners more rights than the USA.

We could start with the EU.
How many of them have military prisons where torture is condoned?
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

We could start with the EU.
How many of them have military prisons where torture is condoned?
Tom

Indeed. How many of them do and you don't know about it?

 

[soulsurvivor]

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?

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 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?

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?

Does it just fuel the fire when you try to strike back against an oppressive regime? Is it better to go about any protest peacefully?

Of course, the targeting of innocent civilians is never justified for any reasons. So religious reasons just do not count as justification for terrorism whatever the extent of oppression, disrespect or 'mocking'.

As for the role of government - there is no justification for protests at funerals. This is not a free-speech issue, the people at the funerals are entitled to privacy. The only kind of protests that should never be restricted should be protests against government officials. This does not apply to private events like funerals.

But how about the sabotage and assassination of Germans conducted by French partisans against occupation forces during WWII? This was done by planting bombs on trains and power plants with casualties which often included non-combatants. Were these actions justified? Was this also terrorism?

 

[arthra]

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?
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 Baha'i Faith has been persecuted in Iran/Persia from the beginning..thousands have been martyred..been imprisoned. Our Holy Places destroyed and cemeteries desecrated and yet we will not stoop to using terrorism or defend our religion with the sword. We oppose the use of violence...and especially violence on innocent and defenseless people.

Our appeal is to international law and order.

 

[Sakeenah]

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?

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 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?

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?

Does it just fuel the fire when you try to strike back against an oppressive regime? Is it better to go about any protest peacefully?

Terrorism can never be justified even in the situations you mentioned such as religious opression, mocking of everything I hold sacred.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Yet look where it has lead, arming al qaeda and similar terrorist groups, so yes, in hindsight it was poor judgement.

Also not sure you can honestly say Russia was defeated. Gorbachev decided that the war in Afghanistan had become a no win situation that wasn't worth the price in men, money and international prestige. So ordered the withdrawal of Soviet troops. That Russia was defeated is a myth perpetuated by western media.

 

[Ponder This]

Questions about morality are rarely black and white. There is always a grey area.

I would say terrorism is hard to justify because it requires a dystopia.
To measure the morality of committing an act of terror we have to compare it to the choice not to commit an act of terror. An act of terror can't hold the high ground unless society is dystopic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You make a good point. However, the point I'm trying to make is on a different tack altogether. To illustrate, suppose you have 100 people. Now suppose 98 of them, for one reason or another, approach any discussion of terrorism irrationally. That does not logically prohibit the remaining two of them from seeking to approach their discussion of terrorism rationally. In fact, in real life, there do seem to be a relatively few people who approach discussions of terrorism in a rational manner. It is, of course, a value judgment whether one finds reason compelling.

I completely agree. I think our points are more the same than different.

 

[leibowde84]

Yet look where it has lead, arming al qaeda and similar terrorist groups, so yes, in hindsight it was poor judgement.

Also not sure you can honestly say Russia was defeated. Gorbachev decided that the war in Afghanistan had become a no win situation that wasn't worth the price in men, money and international prestige. So ordered the withdrawal of Soviet troops. That Russia was defeated is a myth perpetuated by western media.

The soviets wouldn't have pulled out if we hadn't armed the Afghan people. They were shooting down soviet helicopters because we armed them.

 

[ChristineM]

The soviets wouldn't have pulled out if we hadn't armed the Afghan people. They were shooting down soviet helicopters because we armed them.

This is a myth boosted by George Crile's book 'Charlie Wilson's War' and the Tom Hanks film by the same name.

Actually the decision to withdraw was made several months before the cia provided the arms to shoot down helicopters.

Which is how the mujahedeen transformed into well armed terrorists.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a myth boosted by George Crile's book 'Charlie Wilson's War' and the Tom Hanks film by the same name.

Actually the decision to withdraw was made several months before the cia provided the arms to shoot down helicopters.

Which is how the mujahedeen transformed into well armed terrorists.

What is your source on this?

 

[ChristineM]

What is your source on this?

Non American news sources, here is one

10 myths about Afghanistan

 

[ChristineM]

What is your source on this?

Or something more easy to digest

Soviet war in Afghanistan - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to soviet withdrawal

 

[leibowde84]

Non American news sources, here is one

10 myths about Afghanistan

Anything that isn't an opinion piece from a super-liberal news source?