Douglas asked:

I understand terrorism to be a tactic or technique involving the random murder of non-military
combatants. What is your definition of terrorism and can terrorism be justified? Can terrorism be
justified if the aims are good and if the end justifies the means?

============

You are right to view "terrorism" as the name of a means rather than an end. That is why it is possible
for someone to be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter (given what most terrorists mean by
"freedom" by which they usually mean "independence" a very different thing.)

So, of course, if the end does justify the means, then terrorism is, indeed, justified. That is a near
tautology. But, does the end of terrorism (even supposing it can be attained, and that is another
issue) justify the deliberate random targeting of innocent? That is, indeed, the issue.

Ken Stern

Your definition of terrorism is a formal and a rational one. Real 'terrorism' as I define it (i.e. not merely
driven by purposes of power) attacks the established system of thought. In that dominating way of
thinking it is PER DEFINITION wrong (apart from notions like deliberately killing non-military
combatants).

My definition of terrorism is that it is an essential attack on the present basics of life in some part of
the world. However I don't include terrorism undertaken for fundamentalist reasons. The driving force
has to be to improve society or to keep it moving ahead, and NOT to go back to old rules for the sake
of restoring the past.

Your definition can as well be applied for viruses and automobiles. I agree that both have terrorist
tendencies, but don't think that is what you're aiming for!

Inherently such a definition risks being circular. Because of the definition you only recognize particular
kinds of terrorism, and because of that you fail to see the danger or usefulness of terrorism.

In my definition the core of terrorism is a paradigm shift.Sometimes that takes killing, BUT not all of it
is always to be prevented (nevertheless most terrorism has power motives).

If a system of thought (purely as example say the combination of capitalism and rationalism) has
become so rigid that it can only be removed by terrorism then so be it. In evolutionary eyes the
necessary killing is just a minor issue. In fact the U.S. leaders inherently used this kind of argument
when starting the war against Saddam Hussein. Only they didn't see themselves as terrorists,
because their system of thought is at present the dominant one.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely don't approve of the mentioned war. BUT the point of view that
killings sometimes are inevitable is refreshing, otherwise you end in endless debating. In that aspect
ants are far superior to humans.

In principle even terrorism (like seen by me, and surely not the killing part when necessary) is
refreshing. It forces one to think about his or her general rules of living. Remind that terrorists
generally only start killing out of frustration, i.e. out of a lack of real communication.

Henk Tuten