Join the new world

Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?

Note: This is in no way related to eRepublik; this revolves around real life issues.

Hello everyone, I have taken the time to do extensive research on whether “terrorism” can be justified. I have concluded personally that it cannot. It is a matter of opinion, and I would like to hear other people’s thoughts on this subject.


What exactly is terrorism?

Terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police according to Merrian-Webster’s Dictionary.


Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. Terrorists use violent tactics in an effort to create political change, threaten or induce fear in the public and/or government, raise media attention or further their political cause. Unfortunately, many times, terrorist attacks fall upon innocent victims.


Why terrorism cannot be justified.

Unfortunately, many times, terrorist attacks fall upon innocent victims.


One may argue as to the degree of innocence each individual may have. Terrorist attacks in current history most always end in the killing of innocent civilians and children. There can be no argument as to a baby’s innocence.


Terrorism when inflicted on innocent civilians can never be justified. Killing others for any reason other than self-defense is morally reprehensible.


One may argue that the terrorists are justified in their actions. Those in support of the terrorist attacks would most likely also support the attackers’ cause. For example, a group of “terrorists” may bomb the white house because they believe that President Bush is corrupt and is killing innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan without just cause. The terrorists believe that if they bomb the White House and kill the President, the Bush administration will fall, and the wars in the Middle East will end. There may be some who agree with these terrorists, and believe that they are justified. Take a life for a life. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands, so his death is warranted.


However, if the supporters of these terrorist attacks would examine the consequences of the attack on the White House in more detail, they may change their stance. How do we measure the attacker’s success? Is success measured by number of deaths or the fall of the house of Bush? What if the Bush administration does fall, but more and greater corruption follows? How about the innocent lives at the White House that will be lost during the attack? Taking innocent lives is the very thing the terrorists so greatly oppose. This is a contradiction in belief. How do we assess the value or cost of the fear and terror that this attack will instill on the entire nation? Is this also a desired result? Do we know for certain that widespread panic and total chaos will not ensue in the aftermath of such a heinous act? And it is doubtful that such an act would in fact immediately end the Middle Eastern wars.


An attack on the White House would impose a significant impact on our current government and public climate. Immediate and severe actions would be taken. However, these terrorists did not exhaust all legal possibilities. Alternatives such as passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience must first be attempted. We have created a legal system to create change as well as protect the public. Our society has created various means for voicing our disapproval, without the need for violence. These terrorists can vote, form groups and foundations, peacefully protest, and write letters to our elected officials. They have the freedom to join activists, or even travel to the Middle East and volunteer. All these methods will not produce immediate results, and our judicial system is not without faults. But these systems were put in place to protect an individual from harm, and protect those individuals’ personal rights. The knowledgeable death of innocents can never be justified. There are no circumstances under which the intentional killing of innocent persons, even in time of war, can be justified. It is always immoral to do so.


Is it really terrorism? How can you tell?

We can rephrase the absolute statement to “terrorism usually cannot be justified, but in some rare instances, is justifiable”. In the event that all political means of mediation have been exhausted, and lives of innocent people are threatened or the basic needs of life (food, shelter, sanitation) are deprived, then those individuals would be justified in fighting for self preservation through means of terrorism. This act of terrorism must be geared towards those responsible with the insurance that no innocent civilian lives are lost. Maybe then, a word other than terrorism should be used in this instance. Maybe a better word, based on this definition, would be revolution.


Terrorism cannot be justified, as it is nearly always the case that aggressive acts of terrorism are perpetrated by individuals who do not represent the majority of society.


Maybe you could argue that "terrorism" is a political term. Governments call actions terrorist to automatically code them as unjustified. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.


Also, you can argue that it is difficult to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Is an assassination a terrorist attack or an act of war? During WW2, Allied forces had several opportunities to assassinate Hitler, was it a terrorist act? So, maybe you can ask a bigger question, is political violence (riots, war, intimidation tactics...) ever justified? It seems easier to answer yes to that question because it is of less value and does not provoke the same intense response as "terrorism" does.


One interesting example might be Colombian paramilitary groups who fight leftist guerillas (like the FARC) because the government has very limited control (and is often not even present) in rural areas. They call themselves "Self-Defense Forces," and believe they are doing everything they can to protect the country. Of course, others label them terrorist. When do their actions become terrorist instead of self-defense?

Thank you for reading, please share your thoughts.
P.S. Sorry for the wall of text. Intimidating, I know.

Your average American,
Georgiano Vimgani