Is terrorism a justified reaction to oppression?

Answer 1

As this is an open question, there are many different views:

Answer 1 - No

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. The terrorist is an individual who cannot achieve his or her goals through the usual and accepted channels of government and democracy, as these primarily cater for the needs of the greater proportion of a society rather than those of a dissatisfied minority. Therefore, faced with his or her inability to achieve their individual goals, and unable to accept the decisions made by the majority, for the benefit of the majority, the terrorist merely resorts to mindless violence against the majority, in a futile attempt to change the majority decisions made. As the terrorist has clearly lost the political debate on the issues with which they are primarily concerned, it would seem unjust to attempt to further their minority cause by attempting to exterminate random members of the majority.

Therefore, the answer to this query is that terrorism cannot be justified.

Answer 2 - Maybe

Maybe Terrorism can be justified. If you truly study what the American Army did when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, you will expect terrorism to rise. They killed thousands of innocent children and women and tortured thousands of innocent men without any proof of them being guilty. In one case, a soldier entered a pregnant Muslim woman's home, he stabbed her in her stomach, pulled the fetus out, and then killed her. By doing these king of things, Terrorism is expected.

Answer 3 - Depends on the Reading of the Question

The question as worded is vague and so a proper answer requires the different readings of the question to be compared.

If the question is asking if it is possible for people to justify terrorism, the answer is: Yes. People justify all sorts of things which are morally repugnant, usually in furtherance of some "greater good". For example, the writer of Answer 2, justifies terrorism because it appears to be the only way to counter the violence of an occupying army. Others justify terrorism because it helps promote the establishment of new states for disenfranchised minorities (such as in Palestine, Sri Lanka, or Northern Ireland).

If the question is asking whether or not terrorism actual is justified in a moral sense, the answer is: No. Terrorism is determined by having the following definition with six distinct parts: (1) The actions of a person who (2) uses violence (3) against civilian populations (4) in order to provoke fear among that civilian population (5) in order to instigate for political change in the country where the civilians were attacked (6) in line with the preferences of the person who used the violence. (We will return to this definition later.)

In most justifications provided for terrorism, such as in Answer 2, it is viewed as the only way to attack an occupying army, but notice the logical fallacy here. Person A attacks/represses Person B, so in retaliation Person B kills Person C. We know that it is immoral for Person B to kill Person C no matter how horrible Person A is to Person B. It is certainly moral for Person B to defend himself against Person A. It may even be moral to kill Person A (this is more of a grey area though). However, given that Person C has nothing to do with the acts of Person A, it is improper to harm him in any way as retaliation for violence perpetrated by Person A. If we use the example provided in Answer 2, US soldier attacks/represses Iraqi Citizen, Iraqi Citizen bombs a store in Baghdad and kills 5 Iraqi Citizens. There is no justification for the killing of those five Iraqi Citizens, no matter how horrible the US soldier was. Only this US soldier should have retaliation directed at him.

It is worth noting that many people like to ignore the "civilian" aspect of terrorism and say that events such as the Islamic Jihad Organization's bombing of the US and French Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 are acts of terrorism. This is not the case and is just hyperbole used by those who were attacked to show their indignation. What it actually was was an unorthodox engagement of militaries and paramilitaries. In order for terrorism to exist, the victims must be civilian.

ِAnswer 4

Terrorism is not justified under all definitions and causes. Terrorism is acts against civilians, children, old people, and innocent individuals. However, some westerners try to encourage terrorists in the Middle East (by providing them with weapons and training as well as with media support) just to serve their own goals and interests and not due to principles. Refer to related questions below.

Answer 2

That is like asking if Mass murder is a justifiable response to Mass Murder

The answer is NO two wrongs do not make a right