Unfortunately, civilians have always been targeted in wars, e.g., fire-bombing of German cities and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm not sure how philosophy can justify one side doing it whilst condemning the other, except by arguing that the end justifies the means. Or "law of the jungle" or something.

I think applying moral concepts in war like situations makes the whole thing look absurd.

Don't kill innocent people doesn't function as a moral truth anymore. Soldiers on the opposing sides are essentially killing people who they don't even know personally.

Morality is changed to " Get to him before he gets to you " and " ends justify the means" as you have mentioned.

It doesn't take a lot to radicalize a person, once he starts seeing you as his enemy, he is in a different mindset. We should treat terrorism as nothing but an extension of conventional warfare.

The best solution to combat terrorism is not getting involved in conventional warfare in the first place. The war on terror produced more terror because it is a byproduct of war itself

Terrorism, to my reckoning, is simply a struggle carried out with arms. The struggle maybe fully justified but resorting to arms is an entirely different story. Those who say terrorism is a big no-no are focused on the method (arms) and those who condone it are giving their full attention to the motive (struggle whatever that is).

Interesting observation, l think its difficult to terrorize unless you take up arms. Cyber attacks is an option though. Terrorism is usually defined as "using terror and violence against civilians for political motives ".

However non violent organizations have been designated as terrorist in some countries. Take hizb ut tahrir, they want to establish a global caliphate through peaceful means. They were banned for a weird reason, their followers tended to becoming more radicalized later on after being pacifist for a while, hizb ut tahrir was functioning as a coverup for other terrorist organizations. This group is banned in Muslim countries and yet it operates freely in non Muslim countries.

The best solution to combat terrorism is not getting involved in conventional warfare in the first place — Wittgenstein

Good point. Islamic terrorists do seem to see their actions as part of some "Jihad" or "holy war" so, terrorism does seem to amount to waging war by non-conventional means.

Marxists like Trotsky advocate terrorism in the cause of communism:

L Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism

Personally, I am against war and violence in general. But the question remains, what do you when the "enemy" gives you no other option?

A 'realpolitik' rule of thumb: The sisyphusean terrorism by the oppressed is justified – made inevitable, or inescapable – by the wanton terrorism of the oppressor.

Personally, I am against war and violence in general. But the question remains, what do you when the "enemy" gives you no other option?

Depends on the enemy. I think it's impossible to defeat terrorism ( a tool ). You can weaken terrorist groups from time to time but time and again, they will regain power in a different place and time.

Terror groups are used as proxies by various nations against each other. Iran supports Shia terrorists and Saudi Arabia counters it by funding sunni militants , Pakistan supports Afghan Taliban, India supports Pakistan Taliban and BLM. I can mention more examples but the main point is, terrorism is a useful tool. Most countries these days cannot risk a full blown conventional war ( eg , Pakistan and India ) , so they end up using militants against each other. The key factor is creating instability in enemy country and seeing it self destruct in a civil war, then you interfere to install a puppet regime.

The best option for a powerful country like US or Russia would be to fund the local Governments when appropriate, collect intelligence to make sure they are not fucking around, never deploy your own soldiers and most importantly mind your own business ( Don't force your cultural values on a people )

A 'realpolitik' rule of thumb: The sisyphusean terrorism by the (weaker) oppressed is justified by the terrorism of the (stronger) oppressor.

Right on the mark

One important feature of asymmetric warfare is that, civilians of enemy country are also counted as combatants. — Wittgenstein

Why? What's the reasoning behind this?

Another justification for targeting civilians lies in the fact that there will always be collateral damage on your side, your civilians are getting killed anyways, it only seems fair that you do the same in return. — Wittgenstein

So people are numbers to be added and subtracted and as brave resistance fighters you're there to do the math correctly and balance the equation.

A 'realpolitik' rule of thumb: The sisyphusean terrorism by the oppressed is justified by the wanton terrorism of the oppressor. — 180 Proof

Good point.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

So, it would seem that in some cases the oppressed engage in terrorism to counteract oppression and then apply state terror to stay in power by oppressing and terrorizing others.

I for one, tend to believe that humans should try and evolve and leave well behind them the stage of violence as a "solution" to problems. But I'm sure that others would disagree.

Why? What's the reasoning behind this?

For conventional warfare : defeating combatants is seen as getting close to a military victory
For asymmetric warfare : terrorizing and killing civilians forces them to select a gov with different policies after a certain time. Infact, killing civilians is essential.

So people are numbers to be added and subtracted and as brave resistance fighters you're there to do the math correctly and balance the equation.

No, it's just another way of saying, you can't mess with us without expecting something in return.

Interesting observation, l think its difficult to terrorize unless you take up arms. Cyber attacks is an option though. Terrorism is usually defined as "using terror and violence against civilians for political motives ".

However non violent organizations have been designated as terrorist in some countries. Take hizb ut tahrir, they want to establish a global caliphate through peaceful means. They were banned for a weird reason, their followers tended to becoming more radicalized later on after being pacifist for a while, hizb ut tahrir was functioning as a coverup for other terrorist organizations. This group is banned in Muslim countries and yet it operates freely in non Muslim countries — Wittgenstein

I'm in two minds about this but the matter, luckily or not, boils down to whether or not the ends justify the means.

Suppose, for argument's sake, ends do justify the means. This is tantamount to saying everything is permissible so long as an objective is achieved. This issue is alive only in an ethical context and is usually understood as the bad is allowed to the extent a good can be attained. This principle (the ends justify the means) if we could call it that has been used so often by so many people that it's almost become a standard response to many of our problems (the just war).

However, there's a contradiction that's not so hard to sniff out. The ends justify the means implies that the bad is permissible for the good but then good means bad is impermissible. Thus, to endorse the position that the ends justify the means is self-contradictory: bad is impermissible ( :down: ) and the bad is permissible ( :up: ).

Ergo, terrorism or any other ideology that subscribes to the maxim the ends justify the means is self-refuting. The point though is not just that such people, organizations, countries even are guilty of a cardinal sin against logic (contradiction) but actually the extremely difficult circumstances that contrive to make something so unreasonable appear so reasonable.

Strawman-ish. For the oppressed, their 'terrorism' (i.e. asymmetric resistance) is not a matter of "the ends justifies the means" but instead, as Marx (or Engles?) points out, they have nothing to lose except their chains.

However, there's a contradiction that's not so hard to sniff out. The ends justify the means implies that the bad is permissible for the good but then good means bad is impermissible. Thus, to endorse the position that the ends justify the means is self-contradictory: bad is impermissible ( :down: ) and the bad is permissible ( :up: ).

I see this has taken quite a bit of a philosophical turn. I would argue it is not contradictory. Ends justify the means works in a different way. We suspend our judgment on the means as long as the end is a greater good compared to the means.

Why do we suspend judgment ?

Well , it is a form of utilitarianism. The actual problem is, how do we weigh different deeds. Everyone has a different standard or taste.

Strawman-ish. For the oppressed terrorism is not a matter of "the ends justifies the means" but instead, as Marx (or Engles?) points out, they have nothing to lose except their chains.

I won't say he is wrong, FBI has described terrorist mindsets in similar terms. They will do anything to achieve their objectives in contradiction to even Islam itself. I haven't studied Marxist inspired terrorism in detail though.

For asymmetric warfare : terrorizing and killing civilians forces them to select a gov with different policies after a certain time. Infact, killing civilians is essential. — Wittgenstein

This doesn't make any sense to me. Had anti-Nazi resistance movements ever started wantonly murdering German civilians it would have been publicized and pushed the country more towards Hitler. What, you think by portraying yourself -- the enemy -- as monsters you're going to scare the stronger force? No, you've enabled their most brutal elements.

Terrorism against an occupying force is successful when the cost outweighs the benefits to the occupier, but traditionally this is done through targeting property or resources as opposed to just killing civilians.

No, it's just another way of saying, you can't mess with us without expecting something in return. — Wittgenstein

Maybe try targeting the person or group who actually committed the offense rather than random civilians who are uninvolved in the conflict.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Had anti-Nazi resistance movements ever started wantonly murdering German civilians it would have been publicized and pushed the country more towards Hitler. What, you think by portraying yourself -- the enemy -- as monsters you're going to scare the stronger force? No, you've enabled their most brutal elements.

You need to think like a terrorist. You don't use terrorism in your own territory to convince the government, the only reason to use terrorism in this case is if the terrain supports you and the government is foreign imposed ( unaware of local terrain and populace ).

Usually, you use terrorism in a foreign territory to force a change of policy towards you, completely different things. It's not limited to this though, if your terrorism is successful, you can cause socio-economic collapse in enemy country. Obviously, it's difficult for Al Qaeda ( or then Taliban ) to target America to this extent, however, they have succeeded in convincing American public to NOT INTERFERE IN THEIR OWN REGIONAL AFFAIRS. The current political talking point is against interference from bothsides. Afghan Taliban have won on both fronts, political and military.

In the main, the FBI is a functionary in the juridical-policing apparatus of the American oppressor-state ...

In the main, the FBI is a functionary in the juridical-policing apparatus of the American oppressor-state ...

Ofc, they work for their own interests but this doesn't mean their study on terrorism is wrong. They can think from the perspective of a terrorist cause they are the terrorist themselves in the first place. USA and terrorist organizations have quite a lot in common.

A 'realpolitik' rule of thumb: The sisyphusean terrorism by the oppressed is justified by the wanton terrorism of the oppressor. — 180 Proof

Justified? Did you listen to your MLK reference? If by "justified" you mean a seeming inevitability, inescapability, granted. If by "justified" you mean to claim some moral ground, then you are plain wrong. And he was talking about mere riots, not terrorism.

Imo, terrorism cannot be understood without at least some attempt at nuance in understanding. I will attempt some of that here. The characteristic of terrorism is if the purpose of the act itself is to create terror. It may indeed have indirect other purpose, but if terror is the immediate goal, then it's terrorism.

Further, the idea that someone else's act can justify some act of mine, such that it may be said that he caused my act, is against the whole understanding of any goal of humanity. Understandable, of course, but not justifed. Either that or you can justify anything. And the world is full of people who would do that, even here.

Further, the idea that someone else's act can justify some act of mine, such that it may be said that he caused my act, is against the whole understanding of any goal of humanity. Understandable, of course, but not justifed. Either that or you can justify anything. And the world is full of people who would do that, even here.

Revenge has served as basis for a lot of punishments in our legal jurisdiction ( death penalty ). Bodily harms is compensated with financial payments and prison sentence ( It's a form of revenge ). I think it is perfectly justifiable morally to return a slap for a slap. Infact, I would make sure l slap twice so my opponent doesn't even think of retaliation.

Strawman-ish. For the oppressed, their 'terrorism' (i.e. asymmetric resistance) is not a matter of "the ends justifies the means" but instead, as Marx (or Engles?) points out, they have nothing to lose except their chains. — 180 Proof

The point though is not just that such people, organizations, countries even are guilty of a cardinal sin against logic (contradiction) but actually the extremely difficult circumstances that contrive to make something so unreasonable appear so reasonable. — TheMadFool

We suspend our judgment on the means as long as the end is a greater good compared to the means. — Wittgenstein

I humbly beg to differ. The entire notion of ends justifying means is premised on the means being ethically suspect (verging on the bad or evidently bad). Isn't that why its validation (acceptable) lies elsewhere, in the ends. There's nothing good in the means; ergo, use the ends, good, to justify them. That seems to be the meat and potatoes insofar as I can tell. Signing off now.

Yes, "inevitability, inescapability" is what justified means in this context and not 'a moral obligation'. The latter only applies to individuals and not crowds or organizations.

Edited for clarity.

Maybe, but just what makes you return the slap, or the double slap? 180 mentioned realpolitik. I suppose we ought to pay attention to his words. And the word in question here is terrorism. Not revenge; revenge being a whole other topic. Nor do I think realpolitik has much to do with justification in any moral sense.

It leaves an interesting question: individuals seem often to have sacrificed themselves for some greater good. At one end, every good man or woman always already does that. But can one sacrifice their moral self - assuming such exists - as, e.g., a terrorist, to a greater good? In this context is such a greater good even possible?

Terrorist are a subgroup of political activists, they want to bring a political/economic/social change. Political activists turn to violence if they don't see any other alternative.

Realpolitik justifies an action as long as it is the most beneficial in a pragmatic sense, morality doesn't play any role in realpolitik. Terrorism is obviously the only tool in the hands of terrorist besides negotiations, which they are often denied.

Realpolitik allows us to transcend moral considerations, it is a form of moral justification in the sense that we suspend moral judgment.

I don't see what you mean by a moral self ?

This is house of cards reasoning. One MLK, or Gandhi, or Thoreau, or John Brown, or Wilberforce, shakes the foundations or brings the whole structure tumbling down. It denies principle. It amounts to saying that whatever the worst thing I could do to you - whatever that worst might be - I can justify it and do it. Not if, the "if" mere incidental and unnecessary.

By moral self I mean moral self. What problem do you have with that?

Bottom line: according to you a man or a woman can justify and do anything at all, the doing having been justified. I will agree that there is no accounting for what some people might do/have done. But justified?

You don't need a fixed foundation if you are a pragmatist. You use moral systems as vehicles. I don't have any problem replacing one principle with another. It doesn't any make one principle less valid compared to others, it's more about what's appropriate for a specific time and place.

Does the moral self include our past, present, intentions, ideals, accidents, will etc. There are so many variables that it is next to impossible to define moral self.

For me, justified means being practical/pragmatic for my cause whatever it maybe.

So setting aside what you personally might not like, you have no other standards? And I can with justice do whatever I want to you and yours, and, again personal likes aside, you're good with that?

Sure

I for one, tend to believe that humans should try and evolve and leave well behind them the stage of violence as a "solution" to problems. — Apollodorus

This is not a realistic possibility, because natural resources are scarce, and as such, need to be fought for, in one way or another.