Pangaea-world.dk

I asked this question on my FB, (some of you probably saw already), and it spawned a good discussion. So I am going to ask it here: "Is terrorism a moral or ethical question, does the context matter in which these two apply?"

My thoughts, it is a debate based on individual reasoning versus society standards. The two are normally entwined but can be mutually exclusive.

Keep the discussion civil, and GO!

Hmm, what exactly do you want? I don't fully understand the question, sorry. I mean, I can translate it to portuguese and get its meaning, but I don't know what to answer to that :/

I started trying to explain more here but I just deleted it all, I wouldn't make myself understood. Just tell me what you want

My definition of terrorism is pretty simple for me.

Terrorism: The act of distilling fear into things to cause them to do what you want them to.

So there for it could be a moral and ethical response. Both sides of an armed conflict could be seen as Terrorism. And now before anyone wants to harp in about military, I am in the United States Armed Forces so this is coming from a side that has seen both of the equation.

You can not justify one dead body by laying another beside it?

Ok so
As with anything, terrorism relates to moral if we talk about it in theory or it relates to ethics if we talk about what it really is.

I won't deny that terrorism exists, but I must say I'm pretty convinced it is also used an excuse to do whatever you want.

You fear terrorism, so when a bomb explodes, ppl are afraid of the terrorists.
And then you fear the fear or terrorism. When nothing happens, still people tell you there may happen this or that so you do whatever they want in order to prevent the event from happening (even thought there may be no event at all)
Terrorism is both a real thing and a fake thing that ends up serving the same purpose: fear to control.

About armies, there's another thing.

If it is a small group that kills people, they are terrorists.
If it is an army, they're doing what they're supposed to do.

It's like bank owners and bank robbers.
If you rob a bank, you got jail.
If you own a bank, you get to rob people and walk away with it.

I'm not saying everything that goes in armies falls under this category, but I'm sure a part of it is bad.


Az, did you see Brian de Palma's "Redacted"?

I am not implying everything an Army does is terrorism or isn't terrorism, but its a way of showing strenght to everyone else by giving them the fear of messing with them. The United States does that alot, stick there nose in others buisness to show different messages. One being fear.

Not everything the military and armies do is to cause terrorism, but some of the things it does indeed cause terrorism and thats where it breaks down to moral and ethical.

I havn't seen it, but now that you mentioned it I did go and look some of it up and watch some trailers and read about it. Going to try and see it ASAP!

That's an interesting point. Some armies have been considered to be terrorists. Perfect example is Syria. Right now Assad's military is terrorizing the people that are protesting against his regime.

Azrael wrote:Not everything the military and armies do is to cause terrorism, but some of the things it does indeed cause terrorism and thats where it breaks down to moral and ethical

Military is a fine line on Terrorism and Being a good, helpful organization. In the end its all about the persons view of why they are there. Its hard to tell Moral and Ethical from a military stand point. Where it might be moral, but not ethical, where it might not be moral, but be ethical.

I'm actually surprised that you are capable of making those statements and critically thinking about these issues when you are part of the military. From what I know of people I know that were or are in military, they seem to just accept whatever they do as if it was always to protect the people and the good/right way to do it.

There's also another movie directed or co-directed by him, "Casualties of War"
It's about the same kind of story, but in Vietnam instead of Iraq. I haven't seen that one yet though.

I think you're absolutely right about your last post. It's very difficult imo to find the "perfect" way to do something. Also in this case I'm talking about police and everything that involves force. What makes the law be the law? That they are rightfully just? Or do they themselves are just in power and therefore proclaim what they find to be just/the way they want to rule? Kind of like Order of Law in game

for instance, about jail. One would feel that you don't have the right to commit crimes, and you also don't have the right to imprison someone and say "you have to abide by this law, otherwise, we force you to go to jail". But what is one going to do? Let people stay unpunished and continue killing/hurting? That doesn't look an option, but jailing doesn't seem to change who those people are too.

Sorry if I went a bit off topic


In the end, terrorism in all its forms is never good.

I would cut it down to, where you place your targets.

Do you attack civilians or do you attack the people/regime which is opressing you.

Attack civil targets; Terrorism (Moral)
Attack military/opressing targets; Freedom fighters. (Ethic)

Terrorists and freedom fighters are interchangable terms and synonomous ideas. One day AQ is fighting to free Iraq of the infidels, the next they are attacking civilians to spread their ideology and the people turn on them. In the same instance a guerilla movement in the Democratic Republic of Congo started to overthrow a corrupt government start out as a freedom fighting movement, the next year they devolve into a group terrorizing and raping the people they claim to be fighting for.