Can terrorism ever be justified?
urt31
Posts: 2,448 Forum Member
✭✭✭
The generally accepted definition of terrorism is an attack carried out to create terror for political, ideological or religious reasons which may target, directly or indirectly, civilians.
If we put aside recent acts of terrorism in the western world can acts of political terrorism ever be justified?
For instance we now consider figures like Nelson Mandella to be freedom fighters who were merely fighting for what was right. Regardless of this it cannot be denied that he (as part of wider groups he led) was involved in several acts of terrorism including car bombings. I would however suggest that in a sense these attacks were justified in the wider context. We now however chose to retrospectively avoid the terrorism label due to our opinions on the cause, not the acts themselves. Indeed Mandella has accepted that he was, at times, a terrorist. However he believes those acts we're justified:
"I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one." -Nelson Mandella, 2000
So yes, I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this. Please try not descend into reactionary nonsense, if at all possible.
If we put aside recent acts of terrorism in the western world can acts of political terrorism ever be justified?
For instance we now consider figures like Nelson Mandella to be freedom fighters who were merely fighting for what was right. Regardless of this it cannot be denied that he (as part of wider groups he led) was involved in several acts of terrorism including car bombings. I would however suggest that in a sense these attacks were justified in the wider context. We now however chose to retrospectively avoid the terrorism label due to our opinions on the cause, not the acts themselves. Indeed Mandella has accepted that he was, at times, a terrorist. However he believes those acts we're justified:
"I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one." -Nelson Mandella, 2000
So yes, I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this. Please try not descend into reactionary nonsense, if at all possible.
Can acts of terrorism ever be justified? 52 votes
Yes
28%
15 votes
No
61%
32 votes
Undecided
9%
5 votes
0
Comments
Well if Nelson Mandella was a terrorist, it must work, another one is the ira
Only thing is america wont recognize terrorsist at hand, if you killan american they will come after you, but if america bomb a town in iran, it not terrorism, its war,
and justifying the attack on iraq, as war it wasnt war, I see this as terrorism by the united states of america, so they could get there hands on the oil
America is quick to anger, at countries that want nuclear power or weapon, but class this as a problem, as they believe terrorist will get there hands on a nuclear bomb
For example anyone who hates something you hold dear could be called a "terrorist". Look at how the Occupy movement were branded it just because they dared to protest against corporate and political greed.
The State IMO will always brand someone or some organisation a "terrorist" if it feels it's power is under threat.
So I'm undecided however I'm leaning towards a yes.....just. Remember if the State likes you, you're a "freedom fighter" if the State hates you, you are a "terrorist".
Not really as they were fighting an army in a warfare situation and their attacks didn't target civilians.
The ANC bombing campaign was a series of attacks on soft targets. A bank in which four civilians were killed and 18 injured, a courthouse where 3 were killed and 10 injured, the rugby stadium in Johannesburg where a car bomb killed two and injured 37 civilians, a multitude of bombs in "Wimpy Bar" fast food outlets and supermarkets killing and wounding many innocent civilians a great many of whom were black.
The Church St. bomb that the ANC detonated in Pretoria resulted in 19 civilian fatalities and 217 persons injured
On the Natal South Coast in the ANC detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre killing five people, including three children, and injuring 40 people.
A bomb was detonated in a bar on the Durban beach front killing three civilians and injuring 69. ANC member Robert McBride received the death penalty for this bombing known as the "Magoo's Bar bombing". When the ANC government came to power McBride received amnesty and became a senior police officer.
The list is too long to post. I’d pretty much call what they did terrorism. And where is the justification in such cowardice.
By all means let the Soviet backed Umkhonto we Sizwe take on the SADF. But don't car bomb innocent civilians.
Do you think that had Germany taken over France, and had set up a government there, do you think that the French would have said "fair do's, live and let live "and just accepted German rule? Or do you think that they would have continued with their struggle, and possibly targeting German civilians?
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov.za%2Ftrc%2Fmedia%2F1996%2F9608%2Fs960822f.htm&ei=SMN2UdndIcvMPayTgcAE&usg=AFQjCNHShV9K_vhP9V2D79lS7qDsCCojtw
I don't think the fact that the ANC were at one point a terrorist organisation is really in question tbh. The more pertinent question (to this thread anyway) is were their actions justified.
I would suggest that if two factors need to be in place to consider such actions justified.
a) Is the cause just?
b) Has a group has any other realistic way of means to effectively further it's aims?
Obviously there will be disagreement in answering these two questions for any given group, but in hindsight I would conclude that in the case of the ANC the course of action taken was indeed justified. They had no democratic way of addressing the apartheid system to which they were subject and it was reasonable to want to end it, therefore they performed justifiable acts of terrorism.
Unfortunately the term terrorism has become so loaded now that it is hard to have a conversation about injustices around the world because the moment direct action is taken the discussion goes out the window with an imposition of the black and white morality now implicit in the term.
I couldn't say but I'd hazard a guess at the latter. Regardless I would suggest that had that happened then those subsequent attacks would have been both terrorism and also justified.
Horrible to have to choose but this is what sprang to my mind too. Is terrorism just war where one side is not the state?
The lot of who? Are you referring to the example in my first post and proposing the bombing of Nelson Mandella and any other remaining members of various anti-apartheid movements?
It's not just America though is it, all states are quick to label their various problem groups terrorists, We did with the IRA, Russia does with Chechenya, Spain with the Basque separatists, China with the Uyghur separatists, and on and on.
It has become a convenient tool to avoid acknowledging or addressing the perceived social or political injustices which motivate these groups in the first place, and so ensures that the terrorist activity will continue.
Could be tricky.
I do believe that the suffragettes were called terrorists at one time. They didn't kill anyone, but caused a lot of damage.
Way to not answer the question!
Even on a theoretical level, I think the answer to this question must be yes. In an oppressive regime where no other form of opposition is available and the cause is just, then terrorism can be justified.
Look at the initial definition in the OP:
In this definition, then surely the Iraq war for example is an act of terrorism. Or any act of war really. So then the question simply becomes a branch off from the question 'Can war be justified?'
But unfortunately in modern political discourse, especially in the US, terrorism has simply come to mean any act carried out by a Muslim.
Of courses, the same could be said of war. Although we always claim to bomb "legitimate" targets, trying to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, we (or the USA) are still prepared to carpet-bomb cities.
Or one person putting themself at risk for their ideology. the young girl who was shot for trying to change the education system to include her 'sister' in a Muslim country made a remarkable difference.
My friend who 20 years ago decided to do something about the situation in the eastern block countries when Belaruch opened her borders. My friend took some cloths and bedding in (a couple of lorry loads) this made shuch a difference to the people he helped that he did it again and again (founding a charity groupe that is now called 'International Aid') this group has taken thousands of tons of things into eastern (Russian countries) and saved the lives of uncountable people. Yes terrorism is one way to change things but until there is no other way to change the world I say It can't be justified. if one person can change the lives of millions what would happen if we simply stop being pushed arround by the bullies and help to make this world a better place.
And we all know what the words 'freedom fighter' really represent - simply two nice words to hide behind - which only the evil or the gullible buy into.