Are terrorist causes ever right?

If you kill or injure people for your cause then you’re a terrorist.
It doesn’t matter if you think you’re cause is right or not.

nanna8

Yes - the Nazis were the government at the time and definitely terrorists. I was also thinking of the Khmer Rouge, horrible oppressive terrorists.

The Khmer Rouge weren’t classed as terrorists as they were the ruling party. But they certainly spread terror.

Yesterday's terrorist may be today's freedom fighter...
and tomorrow's ruling power...
It depends whose side you are on.

Thats a lovely thing to say dickens, I feel safe now

PS... anyway, who could possibly want to harm our Galaxy - the only one we have who puts a spoke in every wheel to make sure it never just... wheels

Galaxy

I am terrified of anyone who understands them, sorry cossy. It is probably because I know they would kill me.

Understanding the cause of terrorists doesn't mean sympathising with the brutality of their terrorism.

I 'understood' the IRA, but never sympathised with their actions.

I think there's a huge difference between recognising what injustices might have brought about the formation of a terrorist group - and agreeing, or sympathising, with the methods they choose to combat them. Simply because ultimately, your brutality will match the brutality of your oppressor.

My phone must have deleted a few posts, David, because I can't see how you developed that comment.
Would you be kind enough to explain?

I do really really hate Farage and all he represents. Would I set his house on fire or damage any other of his property or threaten to kill him or harm his family?

Absolutely not, for many reasons.

If I saw someone I did not know beating a dog or their child or their wife, would my first instinct be to go in guns blazing with a big stick? Yes, would I do it? No, I’d phone the police and shout a lot!

David49

So if you set fire to a building supporting your cause and family dies that’s OK

No not really.

However, is it right that some “cases” are totally ignored, men simply didn’t think women “worth” or “intelligent” to have a vote or even to have their own bank account.

What if everything else fails? What then? Just sit back and your lot?

Maremia

Allegedly, David, they checked first, to make sure the buildings were empty, and so your point fails.

So if you really hated Farage for example it's OK to kill or maim him, because thats what happens when control is lost.

Menachem Begin (Israel), Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya) and Nelson Mandela (S. Africa) were all considered to be terrorists but they all went on to become leaders of their country. They were all accepted by the British government, visited the UK and Mandela and Kenyatta both had audiences with the late Queen.

That is a very moving video, Wyllow, thanks.

Allegedly, David, they checked first, to make sure the buildings were empty, and so your point fails.

So if you set fire to a building supporting your cause and family dies that’s OK

Was just about to post the same, Magenta8, but the detail that is different, about the Sufragettes, is that they targeted buildings, and not people.
I think that is a crucial difference.

Magenta8

It has long been up for debate whether the campaign by the WSPU - Women's Social and Political Union (the militant wing of the NUWSS - National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies) could be considered to be terrorism.

A campaign of arson and bombing of politicians' homes, churches, railway stations and letter bombs was undertaken from 1912 to 1914. The stated aim was to attack buildings and not people. The campaign ended with the start of WWI.

I remember, back in the 1970s, talking to an old lady who told me she took part. She had posted a few lit fire crackers into pillar boxes around London.

Were their actions acts of terrorism? Did the aim justify the means?

Whatever the cause if the act results in the injury or death of the police or any other person should the "terrorist" be punished

It has long been up for debate whether the campaign by the WSPU - Women's Social and Political Union (the militant wing of the NUWSS - National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies) could be considered to be terrorism.

A campaign of arson and bombing of politicians' homes, churches, railway stations and letter bombs was undertaken from 1912 to 1914. The stated aim was to attack buildings and not people. The campaign ended with the start of WWI.

I remember, back in the 1970s, talking to an old lady who told me she took part. She had posted a few lit fire crackers into pillar boxes around London.

Were their actions acts of terrorism? Did the aim justify the means?

Ideas as well.someons went to psychiatrist and spent 40 years saying she would never get old and die and she could live without eating!

for putting immoral ideas in people'sheads.stupid i

Surprised when the website what books were burnt in W W2 Germany said Sigmund Freud

David49

Certainly many governments rule by terror and oppress those that disagree but they don't plant bombs and kidnap innocent civilians. In the end one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, Mandela was a freedom fighter, the ANC certainly did carry out terrorist acts and still oppresses those that disagree.

Unfortunately I can give many examples of states doing just that. The most recent being the schools completely wiped out with their pupils by the USA and Israel.

My understanding is that Nelson Mandela was originally imprisoned because he refused to renounce the use of violence and he was considered a terrorist. Later it was blamed on his wife Winnie, but I do not know how accurate that was.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist; it is the methods they use to achieve their aims which differentiates them.

Certainly many governments rule by terror and oppress those that disagree but they don't plant bombs and kidnap innocent civilians. In the end one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, Mandela was a freedom fighter, the ANC certainly did carry out terrorist acts and still oppresses those that disagree.

Yes - the Nazis were the government at the time and definitely terrorists. I was also thinking of the Khmer Rouge, horrible oppressive terrorists.