Is Terrorism is an acceptable Method to achieve a political goal/make a political statement?

[Ominous Lord Spoonblade]

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism


Do you believe that terrorism is an acceptable method to achieve a political goal/make a political statement?

I begin to believe more and more everyday that to really make a statement extreme actions are needed. Take into account the Oklahoma bombing/Tim McVeigh and the attack on the WTC for two examples. People may regard these people as lunatics, but at least they have gotten the attention necessary for people to hear of their views. After the twin towers incident many more people were criticizing American foreign policy I think that Al-Quaida got their message across quite well. McVeigh too, as a lot of people are reading his essays and making websites about him.

Think of terrorism in general, not in relation to your cause, or any particular cause. Is the destruction of property acceptable (ranging from vandalism to bombings)? What about human casualties? Does the end justify the means, or is terrorism wrong and only "peaceful" approaches should be taken?

[purity]

Palestinians use it on a small scale frequently. What has it done for them? I think it leads to more government control.

[Angelcynn Beorn]

The only difference between terrorism and war is who makes the decision to use violence. If one is, in principle, acceptable then so must be the other. My support or opposition to acts of terrorism and declarations of war are based on the reasoning and consequences of the actions, not on their violence.

[Moody]

If terrorism is just a tactic of war, then we cannot argue with it - can we?

But this raises the question of Honour; should war be conducted according to the strictures of Honour?

Should there be rules of engagement in war?

If you think that there should, then terrorism falls foul of rules - it becomes dishonourable.

But what if your enemy is completely without Honour [i.e., Israel]?
Are you justified in using the tactic of terrorism then?
Does the suicide bomber, in taking his/her own life actually restore the moral balance by making a self-sacrifice thereby ennobling terrorism?
I think this can be argued in the affirmative.
It is the only bomber, who plants a device and sets it off when he is out of the area who is completely without Honour.

So I would say that the terrorism of suicide bombings is justified on two counts;
i) they involve the Honour of self-sacrifice, and
ii) they are against an enemy who completely lacks Honour.

The sort of cowardly terrorism used by the Stern Gang, IRA, ETA etc., is without Honour and therefore to be condemned as the means do not justify the ends.

[Angelcynn Beorn]

But those who cling to notions of honour in wartime are invariably defeated. Thats the reason why the French knights were destroyed at Agincourt by soldiers they considered without honour.

[Vetinari]

If terrorism is just a tactic of war, then we cannot argue with it - can we?

But this raises the question of Honour; should war be conducted according to the strictures of Honour?

Should there be rules of engagement in war?

If you think that there should, then terrorism falls foul of rules - it becomes dishonourable.

But what if your enemy is completely without Honour [i.e., Israel]?
Are you justified in using the tactic of terrorism then?
Does the suicide bomber, in taking his/her own life actually restore the moral balance by making a self-sacrifice thereby ennobling terrorism?
I think this can be argued in the affirmative.
It is the only bomber, who plants a device and sets it off when he is out of the area who is completely without Honour.

So I would say that the terrorism of suicide bombings is justified on two counts;
i) they involve the Honour of self-sacrifice, and
ii) they are against an enemy who completely lacks Honour.

The sort of cowardly terrorism used by the Stern Gang, IRA, ETA etc., is without Honour and therefore to be condemned as the means do not justify the ends.

Under your definition, the IRA would not be engaged in "cowardly terrorism" since they are fighting against an enemy without honour i.e. Britain.

[Nordhammer]

It's not terrorism as long as you're in control and you make the rules. That's what the American government does. These "preemptive strikes" are terrorism, especially when they have produced no evidence to support the justification for a preemptive strike. It's all BS.

Under such a definition any revolution is terrorism. So the founders of this great country were terrorists.

[Moody]

Professional soldiers [on whatever side they're on] generally adhere to a code of Honour.
The more professional your forces, generally the more effective they are.
The abandonment of all standards of decency in war is usually counter-productive anyway.

War is usually seen as an instrument of policy; if the end policy is just then so should the means used to persue it be just also.

Most people are aware that POWs shouldn't be mistreated, and that civilians shouldn't be deliberately targeted in war, etc.,

How were the British soldiers at the time of Agincourt considered 'dishonourable'?
Likewise, how was the British Army during the period of the IRA campaign considered 'dishonourable'? [It is not enough to say that you don't like the British government - you have to show specific examples of dishonourable military practice].

Also, my criterion for a justification of terrorism was two-fold; the enemy must be demonstrably dishonourable, and the terrorism must involve self-sacrifice [as in suicide bombing].
The IRA campaign never really satisfied the last point even if a case can be made for the first.

[Angelcynn Beorn]

How were the British soldiers at the time of Agincourt considered 'dishonourable'?

Perhaps i should have been a bit clearer and said archers instead of soldiers. The French nobility believed in a code of honour called Chivalry, thr foundations of which were based upon the theory that honourable men fought hand-to-hand and face-to-face. They believed that the use of missile weapons, in this case longbows, was dishonourable and therefore cut off the first 2 fingers of any archers they caught (im sure youve heard all this before anyway...). This lead to their rejection of missiles as a viable tactic of battle and there belief in the nobility of the cavalry charge. This directly led to their humiliating defeat at Agincourt where they charged headfirst into clouds of arrows and were decimated.

There are lots of other stories where people having their conduct dictated by honour are out-maneavered by those using 'dishonourable' tactics. Harold Hardrada (one-time king of Norway) once pretended hed been killed and told his companions to ask the besieging town if they would allow him to have a Christian burial in their church. The defenders did the honourable thing and opened the gates to allow his coffin in, at which point he jumped out and led his army in to pillage the town.

[Moody]

The cutting off of the two fingers is the origin of the English 'V' sign, apparently.

The bow and arrow is a fairly ancient weapon, and I think that the French used the more modern cross-bow at the time of Agincourt.
Therefore I am slightly sceptical about your claim that the English long-bow was considered 'dishonourable'.

I suppose it is English propaganda which suggests that those longbowmen [many of whom were Welsh, and who practiced shooting just about everyday of their working lives, so developing formidable bicep muscles] were able to fire more rapidly and with more power than their French cross-bow counterparts!

To be fair, I do not consider the use of tactical tricks and feints to be 'dishonourable' as such. I am talking about the breaking of accepted codes of decency, such as the massacre/intimidation/humiliation of civilians, torturing/butchering of POWS etc.,
When an army does that, then there MAY be justification for the opponent to use terror tactics.

But if you can win WITHOUT doing that, then so much the better; a victory won in honour is always best.

Now, looking at the tactics of the Israeli DF in Palestine, can we really condemn suicide bombers?
No; the IDF targets civilians, assassinates political opponents, uses torture and terror on a regular basis.