Ethical Terrorist

[A Childs Mind]

Is there any principle of ethics which is based on that we are able to condemn the groups which are usually called terrorists, but we can't condemn the group of so called "anti-terrorist governments"?

 

In brief, How could you separate them based on the ethics?

[YT2095]

well, you only have to look at the word "TERRORist" to see what`s right or wrong.

of course what exactly Defines a terrorist is another matter entirely.

[A Childs Mind]

but think about it both grops have some form of violence one to destroy the other to destroy but to protect. arnt all forms of terrorist in the same group anti or not

[Toadie]

This is a ridiculous question. A good anti-terror group stops terrorists from killing innocent people. A good terrorist kills innocent people. I think the ethics are pretty cut and dry here, in most cases...

 

Also, could you PLEASE invest in a grammar handbook/dictionary, or something? It's becoming increasingly difficult to read your posts o.O

[Mr Skeptic]

Is there any principle of ethics which is based on that we are able to condemn the groups which are usually called terrorists, but we can't condemn the group of so called "anti-terrorist governments"?

 

In brief, How could you separate them based on the ethics?

 

I don't think it is possible. Some terrorists are fighting for a good cause and have some ethics (more than certain governments), whereas some governments are essentially reigns of terror, whether or not they are opposed to terrorist groups.

 

The difference is that governments are a majority and can act openly, and terrorists are a minority and use tactics of desperation. Terrorists are defined by their tactics, not their ethics.

[Toadie]

Mr Skeptic brings up a good point. Essentially this whole topic is based on one's definition of a terrorist.

[ParanoiA]

A terrorist targets the weak, the innocents, the citizenry. Our governments are supposed to target the terrorists themselves, the soldiers, the strength - warriors battling other warriors.

 

The only ethics I can draw from that, and I can, is that terrorists are unethical since they take their fight to those who don't wage it; those who never took any role or compensation as a "fighter" of any kind, let alone any particular group.

 

Our governments are a little more ethical since we directly take on the fighters that waged the conflict; the committed soldiers, proudly representing their terrorist group.

 

Thing is, we do this unethically when we indiscriminately bomb civilian areas and so forth. When terrorists hide amongst them, yet attack, the ethics get a little more sticky for all involved. At the end of the day, I think we rationalize some unethical behavior as well trying to deal with the moral dilemmas presented by terrorism.

[padren]

Thing is, we do this unethically when we indiscriminately bomb civilian areas and so forth. When terrorists hide amongst them, yet attack, the ethics get a little more sticky for all involved. At the end of the day, I think we rationalize some unethical behavior as well trying to deal with the moral dilemmas presented by terrorism.

 

I would say the issue of "reckless disregard for collateral damage" is an issue of ethics, but it is still different than terrorism. The goal of terrorists generally is to traumatize a civilian population to the point they don't feel their military can keep them safe, and cave into terrorist demands. Ironically this is highly ineffective, and admittedly sometimes terrorists do have other motives but it is generally to manipulate through fear and terror.

 

The "Shock and Awe" tactic, as applied to military targets would not qualify, but if the psychological impact on civilians due to civilian collateral costs was a desired side goal, I think it would qualify as terrorism.