when is terrorism justified?

Today, wouldn't the Boston Tea Party be considered terrorism, and the fledgling US army be considered guerillas? Dont get me wrong, im glad we won the Revolutionary War, just something I have been thinking about.

Terrorism assumes acts of vioelence against groups of civilians or important individuals adopted as tactics. I have no reason to believe that the Boston events were like that.

I think they had a few too many beers and decide to dress as Indians and stuff, and that's all.

Using the definition that terrorism is an act of hostility against innocent, unarmed civilians for political gain, terrorism is never justified. The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism, guerilla tactics are not terrorism - assuming it's fought against a real army.

Originally posted by LoganCale
Using the definition that terrorism is an act of hostility against innocent, unarmed civilians for political gain, terrorism is never justified. The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism, guerilla tactics are not terrorism - assuming it's fought against a real army.

I could have not said it better.

To me terrorism is the DELIBERATE targeting of innocent civilians. Some will always be killed by mistake but to be terrorism it has to be Deliberate.

And there will NEVER be an excuse for that.

Terrorism is... terror.

It's just certain parties like to shift and stretch the definition to fit their means.

That's the problem with the world. We try so hard to justify killing, when all we have to do is kill and leave it at that.

TERRORISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED!!!
TERRORISM IS TOTALY DIFFERENT FROM WAR!!

PROUD TO BE ENGLISH
SAY NO TO THE EURO
REMEMBER 911

Do you guys know who commited the Boston Tea Party? The Sons of Liberty, who weren't afraid to use random violence to achieve thier goals.

NOW

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that is the answer...

Why are people so eager to have things justified?

If you want to do something, do it. There is nothing to be justified.

I have always loathed the following quote.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I have often held the view that if a group wanted to wage war, then they should target those who are an agent of force of the group with which they are in conflict.

Now, I use this example. 2 Years ago, the Israeli's launched an invasion of the Palestinian populted cities of the West Bank. When conducting house to house and urban operations, the media reported that IDF casualties were suffered at the hand of terrorists.

Nothing could be further off base. When a bomber boards a bus, kills women and children and men, they are a terrorist. When someone is resisting an armed incursion into their homes, they are freedom fighters.

Now if we are into relative morality, as it appears the previous sweatmonica may be, then we have no right to condemn such attacks, because the terrorists believe they are right.

Of course, I believe in absolutes, and that killing women and children is the act of a coward or a maniac. Why not strap a bomb to your chest and blow up an IDF post, or an IDF tank. And as much as I hate to say this, the insurgents that are targeting and engaging US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not terrorists. AT least they have the courage to fight those who are armed. Those who blow up churches in Iraq? Those who blow up car bombs in marketplaces?

So is terroism justified? No. There is something noble and heroic in fighting an armed opponent who is more powerful than yourself. The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who fought the Soviets. Noble, heroic.

The Spider

Terrorists create their own justifications for why they do things like kill innocent civilians.
Their "justification" is not moral though. It's screwed up thinking and actions fueled purely by hatred (includeing revenge, greed, and envy.)


[edit on 11-9-2004 by elaine]

Originally posted by spangbr
Today, wouldn't the Boston Tea Party be considered terrorism...

Actually, the situation in Boston could be considered "Tea Error", which although very similar, is not technically terror.

(groan....)

To me, an act of terror immediately robs the victims of all civil rights, including being alive, so I consider it an animal of political persuasion that I deserves to be extinct.

Apparently, this is the FBI definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation

The word Terrorism can cover a broad list of actions. But whenever innocent civilians are involved I think it can never be justified. The Russian school terrorist attack is a perfect example I dont care for what reason they claim they did it Killing kids can never be justified In my eyes. I dont care your cause or what was done to you that is just wrong.

I think you can terrorize a military force but that is not terrorism. Military targets are fair game.

[edit on 11-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

analogy sucks.. but what about the jewish guerillas in Palestine leading up to the declaration of Israel? Many in the British colonial forces considered THEM terrorists, because of the tit for tat actions happening between Jewish and Arab armed groups...


justification all stems from the consensus of wrong doing and hopelessness from the overwhelming power of the other side. Scorched earth in the Great Patriotic War in the USSR, the often nasty tactics of partisans throughout Europe also ww2.. all justified because of the terrible alternative...

now can you put that in context to modern day situations (coupled with the fact that you may not agree with the actual 'actors' aims n goals.. Wahaabisim n the like) and come to the same conclusions? Most of the people on this board probably cant justify it, following the logic n all...
If you are confidant in the goals and objectives.. or just the plain civil behaviour of the US and Western countries.. no matter how messy they make things for those in the developed world, you could never justify such guerrila brutality along the general aims of the perpertrartros...
if you are an poor 16yr old palestinian living in a refugee camp with few prospects and an 'obvious oppressor'... well, he's following the same logic and getting his outcome... its all a perspective on suffering

Q

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Terrorism is... terror.

It's just certain parties like to shift and stretch the definition to fit their means.

That's the problem with the world. We try so hard to justify killing, when all we have to do is kill and leave it at that.

Why are people so eager to have things justified?

If you want to do something, do it. There is nothing to be justified.

What are you trying to say?

Terrorism is never justified. Terrorism is an excellent tactic though. Just look at what Yassat Arafat has done. Most countries now hate Israel and love the Jordanian Muslims living in Judea and Samaria (better known as palestinians living in the west bank) Terrorism is going to get Yassar and his people a country. The UN is justifying terror by succumbing to "its" demands.

Terrorism is when my neighbor plays loud music at 2 A.M.

Counterterrorism is when I call the police and make a complaint.

[edit on 9/11/2004 by bodebliss]

i dunno, kinda sounds to me like the destroyed property to coerce the government:

www.bostonteapartyship.com...

here is another interesting article:
earlyamerica.com...

Originally posted by verfed
Terrorism is never justified. Terrorism is an excellent tactic though. Just look at what Yassat Arafat has done. Most countries now hate Israel and love the Jordanian Muslims living in Judea and Samaria (better known as palestinians living in the west bank) Terrorism is going to get Yassar and his people a country. The UN is justifying terror by succumbing to "its" demands.

The countries that speak out against Israel do not do so because of the actions of the Palestinians but rather because of the actions of Israel.

Actions such as demolishing 8,000 Palestinian homes since 1967, building the security wall on the Palestinian side of the 1967 'Green Line', repeated incursions into the airspace of Lebanon, controlling the water supply in Lebanon and telling the people of Lebanon how much of Lebanon's water they are entitled to etc...

The terrorist attacks the Israelis committed against the British both before and after independence didn't win them any friends either.


As far as the Palestinians in the West Bank being comprised of Jordanian Muslims, the reality of the situation is that there are Palestinians who had to move to refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and other locations following the 1967 war.
I would say the Palestinians who live in the West Bank now are not immigrants but people who were born there, moved there from other areas of Israel or have returned back to the West Bank from wherever they moved to during the war.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Israeli population but the Palestinians (the Arab ones) outnumbered the Jewish population since way before the creation of Israel and for quite some time after the creation of Israel so don't act like they are just immigrating into there from Jordan.


[edit on 12-9-2004 by AceOfBase]