Backed into a corner...

[Steezie]

This is carried over from a discussion we were having in my PoliSci class the other day.

Do you feel that violence CAN be justified when it comes to trying to fix a political situation?

Someone pointed out that we dont tend to think of the people that fought in the American Revolution as terrorists even though a lot of what they did was worthy of that classification. We also celebrate members of the French Resistance for similar reasons.

But if a group genuinely feels backed into a corner where they live, is it unreasonable to expect them not to lash out at some point?

 

[Bro_Sam]

Someone pointed out that we dont tend to think of the people that fought in the American Revolution as terrorists even though a lot of what they did was worthy of that classification.

Really? Who in the Revolution targeted civilians or non-military targets?

 

[SmileAndAHandshake]

Do you feel that violence CAN be justified when it comes to trying to fix a political situation?

Sort of. It's a hard question. I'll try to explain my point of view... I can't confine it to "political situation" though. It's a more general answer than that.

To be honest, I don't think a need for violence (like war to keep the peace, as oxymoron-like as that sounds, or violence as an act of self-preservation) actually "justifies" that violence in mortal terms (makes it "right" in the world. Killing is still wrong).

But, for instance... if I killed a guy as the one and only way to save my own life, I'd probably be on my knees asking God to forgive me. If the violence was justified, then I probably wouldn't feel the need to do that. Should I have instead let the guy kill me? Meh, I don't know, but my self-preservation instinct is pretty high. It still doesn't "justify" the violence though in my life...

Justification is a way to make something right, typically out of something very wrong. I can't do that when it comes to life and death. I can't magically turn a wrong into a right.
The only person that can justify a wrong into a right, is God. So by my asking for forgiveness, God does have the ability of justification at His hand obviously. Nothing is short of God after all...

So that's why I say "sort of". I don't think any of us can turn a right into a wrong... but God can. Every situation is perfectly unique from any other situation, any other moment in time. The only one who can deal with the profound consequences of any action we take is God. We can do our best in the mean time but, at the end of the day... it's all Him in my book.

But even then, it's still not really justifying the act -- only dealing with the consequences.

Good question though, very good topic.

 

[ebia]

This is carried over from a discussion we were having in my PoliSci class the other day.

Do you feel that violence CAN be justified when it comes to trying to fix a political situation?

Someone pointed out that we dont tend to think of the people that fought in the American Revolution as terrorists even though a lot of what they did was worthy of that classification. We also celebrate members of the French Resistance for similar reasons.

But if a group genuinely feels backed into a corner where they live, is it unreasonable to expect them not to lash out at some point?

It might be unreasonable to expect people not to lash out, but that doesn't mean that lashing out is the right thing to do. Stictly speaking it is understandable that people do, but not justifiable.

 

[Steezie]

It might be unreasonable to expect people not to lash out, but that doesn't mean that lashing out is the right thing to do. Stictly speaking it is understandable that people do, but not justifiable.

Why not?

 

[MoonLancer]

Really? Who in the Revolution targeted civilians or non-military targets?

Geography really prevented the usa from targeting civilian targets.

Bombing colonists would just hurt the cause.

The war was against the military itself. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the people have been at war with themselves for at least a thousand years. You, your friand, your mom, your dad, your brother, your coworker. Anyone.

Its really to different things.

Terrorist in general is a Joke word. A terrorist is just someone the government says is a terrorist. people can be locked up on this suspicion and denied trial. What this means is the government can take ANYONE lock them up and deny them a trial without cause.

 

[Bro_Sam]

The war was against the military itself.

OK. How is attacking military targets in wartime "terrorism"?

 

[Verv]

This is carried over from a discussion we were having in my PoliSci class the other day.

Do you feel that violence CAN be justified when it comes to trying to fix a political situation?

Someone pointed out that we dont tend to think of the people that fought in the American Revolution as terrorists even though a lot of what they did was worthy of that classification. We also celebrate members of the French Resistance for similar reasons.

But if a group genuinely feels backed into a corner where they live, is it unreasonable to expect them not to lash out at some point?

Yes.

Violence is acceptable in order to:

(1) Prevent theft.
(2) Prevent forfeiture of liberty.
(3) Prevent forfeiture of life.

That is from a political point of view.

There would be nothing that would justify violence on someone because they were not a Christian.

I separate my views into the political and religious.

 

[Blackmarch]

This is carried over from a discussion we were having in my PoliSci class the other day.

Do you feel that violence CAN be justified when it comes to trying to fix a political situation?

Someone pointed out that we dont tend to think of the people that fought in the American Revolution as terrorists even though a lot of what they did was worthy of that classification. We also celebrate members of the French Resistance for similar reasons.

But if a group genuinely feels backed into a corner where they live, is it unreasonable to expect them not to lash out at some point?

no it's not unreasonable.. and when all other options have been exhausted to obtain the rights you want then it's probably even justifiable.

Problem is that is generally the first recourse (terrorist) groups turn to.

 

[Verv]

The notion that we should never use violence to protect our human rights is scary.

The far left has been winning this argument with their constant glorification of peace movements though they have never properly investigated why Gandhi and MLK Jr. could even have peace movements (when you have Subhas Bose, Bhagasat Singh and various violent Islamist groups as well, in addition to Black Panthers and NOI for MLK Jr, it is hard to view the peaceniks as the core of the movement).

The world operates on violence and threat of violence when trust breakd down between people.

To say that we can insure our rights as human beings without violence is to suggest something that is counter to our animal nature.

I will gladly argue pacifists anyday.

I find few things more illogical than pacifism (and those few things are veganism, the anti-American beef movements in South Korea and Japan and polyamory).

 

[jayem]

Really? Who in the Revolution targeted civilians or non-military targets?

The Continental Congress did commission privateers, to attack British merchant ships. Not all of which carried troops and military supplies.

But enemy shipping is a legitimate target during war, and I'm not sure that merchant mariners would be considered as civilians. So I wouldn't call it terrorism.

 

[Bro_Sam]

The Continental Congress did commission privateers, to attack British merchant ships. Not all of which carried troops and military supplies.

Naval warfare is not terrorism.

 

[quatona]

This is carried over from a discussion we were having in my PoliSci class the other day.

Do you feel that violence CAN be justified when it comes to trying to fix a political situation?

Am I correct in assuming that by "fix" you mean "solve in a way the person acting finds desirable"?

I think that violence is almost always the result of putative self-defense or reaction to violence. The justifications of their own violence of two opposing parties typically are merely differing in the interpunction of the same story (e.g. at which point they start telling the story, which parts they define as actions and which as re-actions etc.).

Someone pointed out that we dont tend to think of the people that fought in the American Revolution as terrorists even though a lot of what they did was worthy of that classification. We also celebrate members of the French Resistance for similar reasons.

One man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter, and history is written by the victors.

But if a group genuinely feels backed into a corner where they live, is it unreasonable to expect them not to lash out at some point?

No, it´s not reasonable to expect people who are under control of their negative emotions to act reasonably.