Can terrorism be morally justified?

go away satan

>>2722666
according to liberals, only liberals should induce a terror on the population by watching the plebs to behave as the liberals want and punishing them '''''''''''''for their own good''''''''''

>>2722666
Do explain to me how is terrorism against the population an effective way to question the regimes action? if you don't want to be a terrorist, at least attack the goverment you so much hate and not the people
And if your logic is "the people allow the goverment to be!" then you can rightfully kill yourself, you selfish prick

>>2722713
Has there ever been a liberal terrorist outside of the US founding fathers? Seems like something incredibly rare.

>>2722666
>666
What did he mean by this?

>>2722718
"Make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable"
The targets that are used rarely matter in whether someone is called a terrorist or not. For instance there was the truck attack in Israel against IDF soldiers. Are soldiers not legitimate targets? The definition of terrorists is arbitrary, used o discredit an opposing viewpoint. Attacking the arms of the state also inevitably leads collateral damage.

>>2722718
>if you don't want to be a terrorist, at least attack the goverment you so much hate and not the people
govnt is made up of the people m8

>>2722731
if you can consider the founding fathers liberals than you can consider the unibomber and the oklahoma city bomber as liberals too.

File: 1444838683692.png (713KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1200x960px

Fighting for what you believe in is not immoral.

What you believe might not be moral though, but it doesn't change the fact that fighting for it justifiable.

>>2722731
>what is ANTIFA

>>2722731
liberals spend each day threatening the population to follow their rules or else

>>2722755
They are anarchist/communist not liberal and hardly terrorists either lol

>>2722743
>Are soldiers not legitimate targets?
They are
In Colombia people don't get upset so much about militars or police casualties from guerillas, unless it's some mind blowing act of cowardice like attacking soldiers watching over a school, but rather from their attacks on the people while parroting freedom for the people.
>>2722763
>parading with guns with the intent of intimidate people of oppsite views
>taking weapons to marches and attacking random people
>not terrorism

>>2722767
How many people have antifa killed? You might aswell call all rioters terrorists if that is your definition

File: 1477223998240.png (98KB, 500x438px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x438px

>>2722763
>They are anarchist/communist not liberal
Their entire rhetoric is ending homophobia, racism, sexism, and similar forms of dislike. That qualifies as new liberal to me.

And what, you're not a terrorist untill you killed someone? Guess that one bomber who shouted allahu akbar in stockholm a few years ago wasn't a terrorist, then, just because his bomb blew up at the wrong time.

>>2722774
if these rioters are part of the same organization, with the same goals and are using violence to intimidate the population, then yes I'd call them terrorists
funny how you draw the line at killing

>>2722787
>>2722788
I actually was trying to demonstrate that terrorism and terrorist is a useless politically charged propaganda tool that is used so casually and arbitrarily defined that it is little more than calling someone baddies. The term should be retired completely as it serves no useful purpose.

>>2722813
It serves a purpose and is to indentify those who use terror as a weapon

>>2722747
>its a stupid american uses his retarded definition of liberal episode

>>2722817
Literally every government, army, political group etc. can be accused of using terror as a weapon. Its meaningless and arbitrary who you define terrorists as. For instance is the US army terrorists for its indiscriminate bombing? What about the IDF? FFS even Gandhi was called a terrorist at the time.

>>2722837
It refers to non-state actors. Armies are an executive branch of the state and are legitimate wielders of violence.

>>2722819
This.

>>2722713
>>2722731
>>2722747
>>2722758
You guys are talking about liberals in the normal sense or in the american sense?

>>2722837
>Literally every government, army, political group etc. can be accused of using terror as a weapon.
And? Do you think they are an exception or what?
>For instance is the US army terrorists for its indiscriminate bombing? What about the IDF?
Are you saying they can't be called terrorist from the perspective of the population they are bombing
The US is linked with many terrorists organization but what their army does is open warfare, not mere terrorism, if they are not marked as terrorists is because they are purely the enemy for these populations

>>2722845
>>2722851
Yes but the inherent moral inferiority of terrorists makes it useless in describing non state actors. One mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist.
Im simply saying the term terrorist is useless and should be retired.

>>2722854
>Yes but the inherent moral inferiority of terrorists makes it useless in describing non state actors. One mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist.
The term, as used in political science, is a descriptive term, not a normative term.

>>2722854
>Im simply saying the term terrorist is useless and should be retired.
it is useless only because anybody who wants to make people behave relies on fear of suffering ie terror. but then, there is no other way for a group of people to make people behave...

>>2722865
That's a very grim and wrong outlook on human nature. People's behaviour is not only shaped by negative reinforcement through fear of suffering, but there's also all sorts of other negative reinforcers and positive reinforcers. Just think about the lengths people go to to have sex, be praised or eat sweet things.

>>2722763
>the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
yea they sound like terrorists.

The terms "rebel" and especially "freedom fighter" exist for those instances where you believe acts of violence by a non-state actor are justified. I'm going to say yes, generally if something can be done without violence whatsoever that's preferable but that is not always possible.

>>2722787
>That qualifies as new liberal to me.
Are you really going to use "it's true for me" as an argument?

>>2722848
European liberal and American libertarians.

>>2722718
>>2722747
This and also "terrorism" is often used inappropriately to refer to domestic attacks on a government. It really is a political term, I don't think most acts of "terror" are done with the intention of subjugating a populace through fear. OP makes it pretty clear what he means in his post:
>the use of violence by non state actors

>>2722901
I'm fairly sure it qualifies as liberal to most people. The progressivist cult isn't a fringe thing, it's just mainstream leftist. Someone whos main rhetoric is said progressivism, is thus a mainstream leftist, or in modern terms; A liberal.

Reminder that the first time terrorists existed under the term terrorists is precisely the french butthurt liberals who created the terror

File: 1490325716275.jpg (90KB, 500x265px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x265px

>>2722916
The dude asking the question here, best answer so far.

>>2722916
and those people claimed to act morally and that their ennemy where frankly immoral

>>2722862
Im talking in general context and to my understanding the term is quite controversial in political science also.

>>2722865
Thats exactly my point terrorism is a useless term. If you want to refer to non-state actors call them non-state actors.

>>2722898
Yeah so terrorist is a useless propaganda tool. As for the morality of terrorism I think that it is rather rich of those who live lives enriched by the status quo to tell those it oppresses that they should wait patiently for peaceful change

>>2722932
>terrorism is a useless term. If you want to refer to non-state actors call them non-state actors.
Well, you could say
>"non-state actor using violence as a means to intimidate the populace to influence it in a way to achieve their own political goals"
over and over in a text, or you could just say
>"terrorist".

>Society of the Jacobins, Friends of Freedom and Equality

Us friends of freedom will kill you if you do not live like we like, top kek

>>2722666
Only when gubmints sistematically violate human rights

>>2722951
You see non-state actors already includes the violence and political goals bit and the intimidate bit is so highly subjective that it is useless in general. The problem is people automatically view the "terrorist" as the baddie, so labeling your opponents terrorists is a way of engineering support for your cause. People dont want to be associated with terrorists or terrorism.
Also presumably you would call them by their name in later bits of text eg. The Islamist extremist group IS, then continue by just saying IS. No articles say the terrorist group IS every time they say IS.

>>2722876
that's the point, people either already adhere to the doctrine, reject it or do not care much and already behave without much punishment needed (like just a fine)


Physical pleasures is just the cherry on the cake which works on people who do not care much about the doctrine or the anti-doctrine (which means most people) and this whole business of morality is a full part of hedonism, instead of restricting hedonism to the body.

>>2722666
Putting nail bombs in bins wont make a government change.

No terrorism doesn't work.

>>2722787
Then I guess the Alt right are terrorists too.

Up the RA

Nice try NSA

>>2722755
>what is ANTIFA
A bunch of violent authoritarian fuckwits sued as a justification to be violent authoritarians by other fuckwits, i have never heard of an antifa terror attack on a nation state.

>>2722666

Never.

Depends.

Terrorism and rebellion for example often go hand in hand, since depending on the origin and scale of a rebellion it can be difficult to class an armed campaign as an actual army if they are secretive or stick to guerilla tactics.

The easiest (and yet most shitposted) example is the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

There you have a mixture of just about every level between terrorism and justified rebellion.


A just cause existed for rebellion; a large population of a country were treated very unfairly to a point where it harshly affected their quality of life, and all peaceful and democratic attempts to change this were met with further violence.

So while you can look at the IRA's campaign as "justified" in that sense, you can also then look at how they ended up devolving into essentially violent gangs leeching off the justified cause to fuel their own personal goals; while a group of the IRA and its supporters truly believed-and arguably rightly so-that they were fighting for "good", it is undeniable that rebels cut from the same cloth carried out attacks with little to no strategic value, which brings them closer to the regular idea of terrorism.

You also had the Loyalist Paramilitaries who carried out terrorism when they almost exclusively hunted civilians, but I would then say it's incorrect to call the acts of the violent and anti-irish police force (the RUC at the time) "terrorists" as they were agents of the state.

Really, I think it's an issue that comes with associating "terrorism" being associated with civilians, and rebellions often happening in places full of civilians, thusly being classed as terrorism.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I think the distinction between whether terrorism is every, ever justified comes from the contextual and situational influences on terrorist attacks, as well as the cause they are made for and the origin of that cause itself.

>>2722666
Yeah, when you're trying to drive foreign invaders from your lands. Fuck them.

>>2722666
Can the use of violence by state or nonstate acotrs be moral in any objective terms?
What makes it so?

Violence is only justified when it's done by liberal democratic nations for the purpose of capital gain.

Violence is always justified as it is the supreme moral good. It's a sin not to kill others.

Yeah its justifiable.
But it is also justifiable to fight against it

>>2722916
I can't understand this sentence

>>2722666
If it's for an objectively right cause, but all terrorist groups so far have just been religious zealots. If a group rose for planetary stability, it could be more of a righteous underdog thing.

>>2722755
Antifa aren't liberals and you can't be a terrorist org with a bodycount of zero

>>2722731
I'd argue almost every group in the French revolution were terrorists.

>>2722848
European "leftists" are dead. All they have are super socialists, and light socialists.

>>2724457
>objectively right cause

but anon, all terrorists think they are fighting for an objectively right cause.