Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?
Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult. Terrorism is an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former.
Yes, terrorism should be condemned:
- From a humanitarian perspective, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves.
- Terrorism should be criticised not only on the basis of the standard of universal human values of justice but also according to international law.
- Terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run.
- Violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.
No, terrorism should not be condemned:
- Terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others.
- By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.
- We must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority.
- All violent actions in society cannot be condemned as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
