Terrorism can be justified.

Firstly, there were given two definitions of terrorism, one a broad definition and a narrow definition (refer to round 2, main arguments, argument for Pro, line 17-29), as a way of explaining how terrorism can be looked upon. If one was to refer to the broad definition, terrorism would indeed be ignoring basic human rights, but not only would “terrorists” be accusable, but the states of the world too. This would result in the word “terrorism” losing its ability to point out a group of people causing terror directed against states through the means of violence against innocents, but instead be liable to be used against any country if it were to break any human rights (which surprisingly many countries do.) If the narrower definition was used, terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and IS would stand to be accountable for acts of terrorism, whilst freedom fighters targeting their state and not the innocent people of their country, would not be put into the same ranks as what then some would describe as “real terrorist groups”. Secondly, human rights may be a right to most citizens of the world, but some states still suppress their citizens and take away their rights. In these countries, if all other means of peaceful negotiation or of the sort were to be dismissed and ignored, what other means would the citizens of the country be left with? These are extreme cases and rightly so, violence is never a good choice, but it may sometimes be the only choice that is left. Minorities in most countries are heard and terrorism is by far not the only option they have to be heard, terrorism was to be the last resort under a rule actively suppressing them for the benefit of the majority. As said above terrorism, or rather violence against the state using the narrow definition was to only be used in the most extreme cases where all peaceful choices were deemed futile. Indeed terrorism may be a lazy method of expression, but if it is the only method to get an international voice to call for assistance, it is a method better than giving in and accepting being suppressed. It is true that terrorism can spark hate among people and cause attention being put onto it, but have it then not done what it was supposed to do? Resistance and freedom fighters are not trying to tell the system that they are doing it wrong, it is well beyond that at that point. Their goal is international attention, as states have the influence and power to manipulate the citizens and cover up so the rest of the world cannot follow alongside what is happening, freedom fighters must resort to, once again, the extreme choice of terrorism, although preferably using the narrow definition, violence. Wars are never a good option; it is well beyond terrorism, as most states commits acts of war during wartime could be considered acts of terrorism as well, using the broad definition. Today’s wars are not so much wars as they used to, but rather special undercover operations, such as Operation Neptune Spear, the operation that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden. It is true that these Operations are regulated, but with Neptune Spear it does not seem as much as an act of war, except if you deem the United States’ war on terrorism a “real” war. Anyways the discussion, though very enjoyable, was not about wars and beginning to define wars too would be pointless as the debate is about terrorism. Thank you.