Terrorism is Sometimes Justified

For the purpose of this debate the definition of terror will be as followed:Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) You had just said that I must justify murder, yet I don't believe I do. Is it considered murder when a soldier dies in a war? I feel the term "murder" may be very subjective in this case. It depends on what side of the issue you were on as to whether you would view "terror" acts as murder, or casualties of war. That aside I will still go forth and justify the acts of violence and in some cases even killings. Killings: Although the most extreme method of terror, it is often employed to send the ultimate message. Often times this tactic is reserved for the most important targets. I will not advocate indiscriminate killings as I do not see it as justifiable in any sense. For the purpose of this argument I am referring to simply political/military/economic targets. Since at its most fundamental base terrorism aims to achieve a political or military victory it would be fair to say that the immediate targets to achieving such an aim would be the targets I mentioned above. In the case of the Irish Conflict many secret communications had been made over the years. Both the IRA and its split-off groups had attempted on numerous occasions to resolve their differences through dialog. As it became apparent to them through the inaction of the British government, and the refusals on key issues the need for further fighting had become inevitable. Like any government engaged in diplomacy dialog was considered the first step. What are these people to do when diplomacy leads to no results? In matters of freedom time is something that people don't have. Left with no further options, and having exhausted every other avenue of dialog they were left with no choice. The injustice that they were being exposed to could no longer be tolerated. In this circumstance the people were left with no other way. The only language they knew the British would listen to was violence. Moving away from the dialog and into the war end of the struggle new tactics had to be furnished. Many of these revised tactics led to sniping operations, bombings of economic interests, and assassinations of political figures. Can this be justified? Yes. It is justified in that they are fighting a war of freedom. It is no different than any peoples fighting injustice and having to resort to extreme measures to wage that fight. The people dying are those who stand in the way of the achievement of the given goals. In this case it is more of a matter of war, than a matter of terror. When the aim is to achieve the freedom/equality/justice that people are inherently entitled to, then the deaths of men/women who perpetrate these evils is justified. I am basically arguing that "terrorism" is as a last resort justified. In history many revolutions have taken place that required violence be used. Without these revolutions much of the progress we have in ways of liberty/freedom/justice would be lost. In many cases it is the only option people have. Will people die as a result? Yes. Innocents? Yes. If we are to argue that terrorism is not a "war" between two parties, and that its actions constitute murder than we must reaccess our definitions of war, and murder. In theory any intentional killing of another human being is murder. Are we to prosecute military pilots whose bombs go astray and kill hundreds? Of course not, they are in a war, people die. Well the same can be said with regards to terrorism. To the parties involved it is a war. The government of Britain had no problems with executing the IRA prisoners, of torturing prisoners during interrogations. They considered it a war, and in war nothing is pretty. I feel terrorism is just another name for war. For those who agree with the "terrorists" aims they are nothing more than freedom fighters. To their enemies they are terrorists. They are justified in doing anything necessary to achieve their aims given their inability to use alternative legitimate measures to achieve their goals. Since the lack the ability to conduct the battle in any other way they are justified in the tactics they must employ.