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.

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.

 

  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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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

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.

Exactly. See? Simple.

Gross, but simple.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.