Do you think that terrorists can be fighting for the right things even if it's still terrorism?
How would you feel if someone was using terrorism to liberate the people and or themselves from governments they disagree with?
(Picture related it's Zero from Code Geass, a fictional character I heavily agree with)
everything is right
everything is wrong
fight for everything
believe in nothing
let the madness consume your mind
you are one of us
there is no scape
If you're murdering civilians to get attention for your cause, your cause has to somehow be much more important than the lives and safety of an entire nation. That's a pretty high bar...
That's something that's subjective isn't it? So is it right if I deem it to be? Or is it wrong cause many deem it to be wrong?
This
If you behold life and the preservation of it above all other things. Then you can have a cause that is just.
Every terrorist believes they are in the right for the actions they are doing, even your stupid anime example. Does he have the right though, to end these peoples lives to save other peoples lives that he wishes to keep on living? The same logic can be applied to every school of terrorist thought, that is why they are ultimately wrong and immoral.
Nobody has superpowers in the real world basement dweller.
Breivik
Terrorism should never be supported but universal uprisings are okay.
What is universal uprising? If 100% of people agree its not much of an uprising
Zero was a bitch and he died like a bitch
because offensive homicide is inherently "wrong", there must be an objective bar against which you can justify your act. Once you delve into the world of subjective morality, the only difference between terrorism and self-defense is which side you're on.
I specifically remember Lelouch dying not Zero
But Isn't terrorism just what the bigger army calls the smaller army?
War
If the aggression is against direct perpetrators of the cause (whatever it may be, as long as homicide is objectively justifiable) a resistance force can attack the perpetrators in such a way that they "terrorise" them but at that point is basically guerilla warfare.
So no, "terrorism" is never justified, because if it's justifiable there's likely a better definition that applies.
>Lelouch
>dying
casual pls
Except the liberation of Japan was just a means to an end for him. Is it okay that he concealed his true intentions?
Please don't remind me of that scene
;_;
>(Picture related it's Zero from Code Geass, a fictional character I heavily agree with)
lmao grow the fuck up kid
He did it for the end result
If you believe that ends can justify means, then there's nothing stopping you from becoming a monster. You might kill 1,000 babies by bashing them against their mother's heads in order to get what you wanted if you believed it was important enough - and what is there to validate that conviction in the first place? The road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". If we don't distinguish ourselves from our enemies by striving to be moral, then we have no "good" reason to fight them.
Yes, but only in terms of propaganda
If the smaller force isn't specifically targeting non combatants, how is it "terrorism"? That's just a military campaign.
C.C is frigging hot, that is all that matters
Gundam 00 is probably a better example.
I don't remember their ever being this many Sup Forums's on Sup Forums. Did I just not notice before or did the trump awoos liberate us.
potentially yes. Acts can be branded as terrorism by the people in power who might be in "wrong" but i dont think its aplicable to any current events.
no it's a retarded tactic
>remove and replace population
only thing that 100% works
>remove and replace leadership via asemetrical warfare
works for a generation or so see cuba
terrorism might work on cuck states, but not ones full of violent people foaming at the mouth to turn the desert into a sheet of glass.