Good Terrorism?
Say there's a corrupt government thats starving and slaving its people. You hear about it on the news and get your friends together, buy some weapons from the black market and smuggle them into the country... Successfully. The government is creating grave injustices and trampling on human rights. In this case, is it right to terrorize the government of that country?
Yes
Side Score: 17
|
 |
No
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
7
points
Terrorism is a tactic and in itself cannot be good or bad in that sense. In our case we think of the founding fathers were revolutionaries and not terrorists, but that is simply our perspective since we were for the cause. The British at the time said differently. It's perspective, and if you think modern armies don't use terrorism you are severely naive. Side: yes
3
points
A "Coup d'etat" is always in order when a government is that evil and corrupt. Guerrilla fighters have aided in these ousters throughout the ages to help their fellow man overthrow an unjust government. It's not about terrorism...it's about justice and counter-terrorism. Side: yes
What is described here is not terrorism, it is resisitance. Torrorism is acting in violence against the general populace, many of which are totally innocent of the wrongdoings of their government, leadership, etc. Resistance, focused on the actual groups (police, military, or other actual organised groups) that are perpetrating offences against humanity is justified. Is there any other justifiable cause to violence against another unless it is to save a greater group from suffering? I do not think so. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
|
What is the definition of terrorism?–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. from Dictionary.com Terrorism uses violence and violence should never be used. Military intervention should be used on corrupt governments Side: No
The only difference between the Americans and say Al-Queda, is that the latter are more determined and have less resources. Both sides use violence to suppress other views, both kill civilians to do it and both believe everything they do is justified. In the end, every war in history has been nothing more than a glorified terrorist campaign on both sides. Side: No
I agree with what my opponents say though i would like to keep my point that for the greater good we cannot forget a few people. Imagine a violent revolution for the greater good, lots of people being killed and injured and if you or your relative were in their place. Would you allow yourself to die for the greater good? The answer to this question is a big NOOOOO...........because when it comes to life no one thinks of the greater good . Further if you don't consider this point important then I have one more for you my friends...........All of you and Everyone of you know that in this era in the 21st Century, no terrorist organization not even a single one uses violence for a good cause. The one who still don't accept it they neither love peace nor do they want it. You know various organizations like ISIS, the biggest among them uses violence only to establish its rule.........and there are many more...........so no organization bothers for the greater good instead they are lost in greed of power and fame.......In a nut shell I believe that every coin has two sides, negative and positive but this coin(terrorism) has more of negative side ... JAI HIND Side: No
|
