Are All Terrorists Bad?

I want you to share your opinion! Elaborated opinions appreciated! #Terrorist #Terrorism

It exists many different types of terrorists. Here's some examples on organizations that does terrorism: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, IRA, Army Of God, Hamas etc.

My Opinion:
Most terrorists does both bad actions and have intentions that doesn't make sense at all, but it do exist terrorists that may have some good intentions as well. I think terrorists do bad actions, but not everyone are entirely bad. The intention counts too. But pacifistic solutions is the best one, but not everyone believes in it sadly. The terrorists during the French revolution wanted freedom, In the US in the past some wanted to free the slaves and some people fought against segregation though terrorism around the world. Some bombers does it to save innocent children.
  • Yes (Explain why, please)
    Vote A
  • No, sometimes it's necessary (Explain why, please)
    Vote B
  • The intention may be good, but the action would always be bad (Explain why)
    Vote C
  • Other (Explain what and why)
    Vote D
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
2074

Most Helpful Girls

  • There's no thing as good or bad on this world. They do bad things. They take Some of the terrorists family as hostage and make them to kill or explode themselves in order to save them. Or they are being brain washed into this thinking if they die when they kill others they'll go to heaven. Or god wants them to do this. They don't actually understand what they do is bad. They believe in something and they do what they think is right.

    0|1
    0|0
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
  • I had a discussion with a coworker the other day about terrorism, religion, intentions, etc., and I played the devil's advocate. I'll leave religion out of it, but I will say that every person who commits a terrorist act believes the resulting carnage will benefit whatever their cause is. They believe they're doing the right thing, however cruel the action may be. I will never defend the actions of terrorists, but in an attempt to understand them, I came to the conclusion that in their eyes, they are right, and they believe what they are doing is right. Generally, I personally consider anyone who intentionally harms innocent people a bad person, but I will say that I understand the difference in thought between myself and people who can commit such atrocities. I don't believe they are all bad people. I believe many are severely misinformed people who are desperately trying to do the right thing in the worst possible wrong way.

    1|2
    0|0
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
    • You believe nobody should harm anybody. They don't believe that. Who is right?

    • That's the thing. I think I am, they think they are. If you're asking me, I'm right. Ask them, they are. The same with religion. Every religion believes they are the one true religion. So who is right?

    • Exactly.

Most Helpful Guys

  • What do you mean by bad? What do you mean by terrorist? In general I'd say yes, but I don't think that the slaves who revolted and ended up killing their slave master are necessarily wrong. I don't think a person who kills another in self defense is immoral. I don't think rebels who throw off an oppressive government are necessarily bad. Life is complex.
    I haven't answered the poll yet.

    1|1
    0|0
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
    • Terrorists are people who use violence and attacks people because of a political cause. Breivik bombed a government building and shot members of a political party because he was disagreeing in their immigrant policies. Hamas attacks people in Israel because they wants freedom from Israel. Some activists bombs abortion clinics because they believes a child's life is a human right.

      With "bad" I mean if you thinks terrorists are always entirely bad, they're doing a bad action (something wrong) - but may have some good intention or if terrorism is sometimes justified for the greater good.

    • Right. A rebel throwing off an oppressive regime (like the American Revolutionary War) is technically a terrorist act. I think it was also justifiable, just for one example.

  • I always loved Christian Bale's example of Moses and how he would be considered a terorrist in today's world.
    I think terrorism and whether its a noble cause or not can vary. I mean the Rebels in Star Wars were terrorists (first example that came to mind, sorry that its not a real world one). So no, I think terroism is defined as good or bad depending entirely on your place in the world. If you're the victim then its bad but if its for your cause then suddenly its labelled things like "freedom fighting" or any other term that isn't "terrorism".

    1|3
    0|1
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
    • In the star wars EU the rebels are often explicitly called terrorists by the imperial and some imperial citizens

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 18

  • Lmao "but it do". Anyways, there's no such thing as a good terrorist. A terrorist has no good intention whatsoever. If they did they wouldn't be terrorizing people!

    1|0
    0|1
    • Some terrorists bombs government buildings to get rid of dictatorships. I think it's morally gray if they wants to end a totalitarian regime that's torturing people. I also think it's morally gray if someone bombs someone to save innocent children. What they're doing is bad, but the intention isn't entirely bad.

    • Like I said there's no such thing. Would you call our troops murderers for defending their people and country? Those title only apply to those doing it for no good reason and just for destruction.

  • Yes - the dictionary can explain to you the reason why...

    2|4
    0|1
  • They definitely aren't good people however they are not always bad evil people either... many good people or just ordinary people and even depressed teenagers are brainwashed into joining terrorist groups. And also many do it due to poverty, terrorist organizations give these people money for bombing and give threats that if they don't do it they will make their families suffer.

    0|0
    1|4
  • Anybody could be labeled a terrorists. A terrorists is someone trying to express a ideology or a agenda through fear. Technically the founding fathers were terrorist. They promoted violence and destructive acts for their beliefs. Most groups are labeled terrorists because people don't agree with them there agenda. When the United States labeled the black Panthers a terrorists group but not the KKK. I'm pretty sure at least a few countries around the world would deem the USA a terrorists group

    1|0
    0|0
  • It's self explanatory , if they think the only way to get their message across is by hurting or killing people then they are terrorist. They are not helping anyone , not themselves or other People. I have never heard of terrorists and their actions saved thousands of people.

    0|0
    0|1
  • I mean they kill people. Are they supposed to be good?

    0|2
    0|3
    • If a totalitarian government kills innocent civilians and some civilians reacts, deciding to make a group and bombs the government buildings where some people dies, are they completely evil then? I would say that what they're doing are a really bad thing. But if the intention is to stop the government, maybe it's not entirely bad. Perhaps it's very gray.

    • Look up the definition for terrorist. Form your own opinion. Ffs

  • Unprovoked terrorism is bad. So those people are scum.
    However if a group of people are trying to defend themselves, then they aren’t necessarily bad. Just vengeful.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Even with good intentions, objective morality still has to supercede subjective morality. The ends don't justify the means if the means are absolutely terrible.

    0|0
    0|0
  • How do you define a terrorist? Are acts of violence bad.. yes! Are people rebelling against their government when they disagree with it bad.. hmm not necessarily. Are protests bad.. not necessarily. It's not black and white here.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Terrorists are people who use violence and attacks people because of a political cause. Breivik bombed a government building and shot members of a political party because he was disagreeing in their immigrant policies. Hamas attacks people in Israel because they wants freedom from Israel. Some activists bombs abortion clinics because they believes a child's life is a human right.

      With "bad" I mean if you thinks terrorists are always entirely bad, they're doing a bad action (something wrong) - but may have some good intention or if terrorism is sometimes justified for the greater good.

    • How do you determine who is a terrorist and who is an activist? Are they no longer an activist if they become violent? You don't hear America's calling white people shooting up schools or white people people bombing abortion clinics terrorists. It seems more like a label for violent acts performed by people who are not white.

    • By definition terrorism = unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I think all terrorism is bad!!! but I think the word is aimed at a specific demographic of people which is definitely racism.

  • Terrorism is a word those in power use to describe the opposition. Although some are obviously bad like Isis is terrible some “terrorists” are not bad they are revolutionaries who fight for freedom

    0|0
    0|0
  • it doesn't matter why you do it. your goal might be good. but hurting/killing people is NEVER any good. of the ten things god thought were most important, do not kill was one of them

    0|0
    0|0
    • And if they are killing everyone around you and you will be the next? Will you still fellow God's advice?

    • @jean_A I will always follow gods advice, he died for me too

    • just read your opinion more thoroughly, Maybe you consider, what i call revolutionists, terrorists. in that case not all of them would be bad people, but the action is still always bad if someone dies

  • Well, yes. I would think that it's implied by the term "terrorist"!

    1|3
    0|1
  • I mean, it depends on your point of view. I personally think they all are

    1|1
    0|1
  • I really don’t care what their intentions are if they end up hurting/killing people anyways.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Every force has equal or greater effect. Same with terrorism. Can't expect world peace when you cause so much problems.

  • To me they're all bad because no matter what their intention are they end up hurting / killing innocent people and to me nothing justify this.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. Hence the meaning of the word "Terrorist".

    0|3
    0|3
  • Lol, only the terrorists whose side you're not on.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Killing innocent men, women, old people, children, etc in order to harm/display a bad image of a religion is never a good thing. I don’t care what anybody says.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 72

  • I don't believe all terrorists are bad because good and bad is subjective. Take Al-Qaeda for instance. They wanted to kill apostates. They believed it to be the message of the Quran. And so, they BELIEVED they were doing what their god wanted. And in doing what your god wants, I think we would all agree that this would be considered a moral act. In essence, they believed they were doing the ultimate good: kill for their god.

    But obviously, they've done bad things. Some people believe the end justify the means or vice-versa. But that, too, is subjective, as well as dependent on the circumstance to many. This is simply what I believe. I do not mean this about all terrorists as there are definitely exceptions to every group, but I do believe that some are good people who do bad things. They are bad for us, but they believed they were good. And if morality is subjective to each individual, then I find it rather unfair for us to believe that our idea on what's moral is the correct one, in regards to terrorism, as well. After all, we must be consistent with the idea of subjectivity.

    1|0
    0|0
  • To start, goals matter. If you are waging a war to conquer another people, that is generally regarded as bad. If your aim is to overthrow a tyranny or liberate a people, that generally is good. However, you are conflating definitions.

    Terrorists attack civilian targets for the propaganda and disruptive effects. They act in violation of what are typically regarded as the rules of war and they actively seek to avoid engagement with conventional military forces.

    "Rebels" typically do NOT attack civilian targets for their own sake. Moreover they will engage conventional military forces and seek out what are usually defined as military/political objectives.

    Regardless of motive, terrorists are always "bad" insofar as they target civilians and other vulnerable populations specifically. While in practice the line can get blurry, as a practical matter the point is that regardless of motive, the terrorist is attacking the innocent specifically and with malice aforethought.

    Your Civil War example, moreover, does not work because both sides engaged conventional military forces against military targets. Sherman's "March to the Sea" is sometimes cited as a terrorist action - as indeed was Allied bombing of cities in the world wars.

    However, in both cases the targets were not civilians but the infrastructure that facilitated the war making powers of the other side. In practice, that distinction may have alluded those who were on the wrong side of the bombing, but the intent of the attackers was the key.

    Indeed, as weapons technology, with precision guided munitions and the like, has improved international law has become quite strict about attacks on civilian targets. Consequently, Western governments and publics have become extremely sensitive about civilian casualties.

    In this connection I feel constrained to add that I think that this sensitivity, however well intentioned, is exceptionally unwise. It has the effect of prolonging military operations and therefore the suffering they cause - as well as giving a tactical advantage to those governments and organizations like terrorist groups that do not share the West's moral scruples.

    The bottom line, at least in terms of international law is that terrorists target civilians specifically to attain their ends. Their methods are not conventional military operations. Whatever their goals, this makes them morally reprehensible

    0|0
    0|0
  • Terrorism is absolutely negative. If you call someone a terrorist, then you have decided their actions are bad. The label of terrorist is subjective in a few instances however, which I think you are asking. It all depends on which side of the conflict you are on when viewing combat. War is voilent and innocent bystanders get killed, which is never an acceptable outcome. But I see terrorism as an act separate from war. I cannot stand religion as a justification for killing non-combatants. Ideology of any kind does not justify the killing of civilians. That is clearly terrorism and no one should find a way to be sympathetic to them. I have killed terrorist in Afghanistan who prey on their own people, but because they differ on small aspect of the same religion, they justify killing unarmed people, taking their kids and brainwashing them to repeat the same treachery. I don't care how strongly your religion compels you, killing people who were no threat to you physically is an act of terrorism, and it is always, 100% wrong

    0|0
    0|0
  • This a tricky question but I think the answer for this one can be divided into some small points to make it easy for others to follow:
    1) I really believe that we create the terrorist nobody born as a terrorist and I will try to make it a little bit simple in 2013 in Egypt a military coup happened and in 14 of augest 2013 the leader of the army killed almost 1500 person in rabaa mascara after that the terrorist attack started in Egypt because the government killed so many and some people wanted a revenge (in this point I am not justified terrorism) I am just saying how it start).
    2) when people know for sure the justice system in the country will not give them the revenge they seek. They will try to get this revenge from other channels and that creates also terrorism.
    3) the terrorist guy is not always bad but he is weak to let himself become a slave to his anger and his desire to revenge.
    4) i read in one book before a famous quotation says (while you are fighting in a war against injustice be careful to not turn into the dictator that you are fighting)

    0|0
    0|0
  • My issue with terrorists is that they target civilians. The ones targeting soldiers aren't inherently terrorists they're enemy soldiers.

    Mostly I think terrorist is a buzzword to inspire fear and justify violence against the middle east. It was going on a bit in the 90s then went into constant use in 2001 when the war on terrorist started. Which has been about as effective as the war on drugs at stopping terrorist ideals from spreading.

    0|0
    0|0
    • So basically yes killing civilians is an evil act but we call a lot of people terrorists who aren't.

      Plus lets just take a look at the us forces casualty list, oh wait they stopped counting a few years ago because it got too difficult to keep track... not blaming the soldiers just the government abusing them and approving strikes with civilian casualties.

  • Terrorism is bad all the time. If you're asking of "terrorist organisations", then that's subjective. To some, BLM is a terrorist group. The ANC were classed a terrorist organisation and was later celebrated. However, there are some whose objective is to cause harm and damage and are universally (except themselves and very few others) regarded as terrorists.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Terrorism is in theory always wrong. Resorting to invoking fear into people to get your message across SHOULD never be the answer. But when people with that mentality are the oppressors, you have to fight fire with fire. When a government does it, it's not terrorism though; It's called surveillance, dictatorship, martial law, etc.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Terrorists we don't like are terrorists and are VERY BAD.
    Terrorists we like are Freedom fighters and are VERY GOOD. We arm them

    0|1
    0|1
  • The Patriotism of the one is the Terrorism for the others...

    For me there are no patriots or terrorists, just people who think they are something better than others and that causes they are fine with killing each other for another ethnic, religion or something they "believe"...

    0|1
    0|0
  • If they are doing with sense and good cause then they can't be called terrorists. They are freedom fighters

    1|1
    0|1
    • Not every freedom fighters are peaceful and pacifistic. Some use violence and similar methods as regular terrorists. Someone's heroes would be someone else's villain.

    • Show All
    • Its situation of fight or endure. They choosed to fight. But there is small difference. Freedom fighters didn't ran away when they have seen death in front of himself and terrorist like amir ajmal kasab of mumbai terror attack tried to surrender and save his own life after he realized that he has done something wrong. Because whatever he has done was done under influence of masters. He never wanted to do that. Escaping is not nature when someone doing for nice cause.

      Not only Kasab but all his colleagues were nervous after killing so many when they realized its time to die. I have listned recordings of phone calls.

      Yes major difference is regret between this kinda two terrorists. One regrets at the other second has no regrets

    • Saying terrorist to freedom fighters as you want to listen in that way

  • Yes because by definition, they are murderers who terrorize and kill innocent citizens. You can go to fucking hell with this "maybe they have good intentions" bullshit. They're the scum of the earth. If anything is holding the world down, it's them. Hope they burn in hell for an eternity.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Regardless of who they are or where they come from. By definition terrorist are bad. Terrorizing people for what ever reason is wrong and usually evil. Funny about war. Both sides are fighting by choise and to ask for war is asking to be bombed, killed and other horror. It is what is called a justified evil. But it is still wrong but believed to be necessary i inrder to prevent even more evil.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It’s all about motive. How far it is from being morally good. Like the Rebels from Star Wars. Some people in the Empire might think they’re terrorists. They think the Rebels are the “bad guys”.
    No one,(at least in real life), thinks they’re evil. They do things because they think it’s the best decision, even if it’s not.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I vote yes, and here is why. MLK, Gahndi, and their loyal followers all have what in common? -non violent revolution.

    Basically I am saying you don't have to be a terrorist to make change happen. You can not force a heart to change, because when you do you only make that person resent you. So you have to appeal to human natures tenderness.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Extremism is the only thing that changes the world. Without the heroes of Columbine, schools would be a lot more vulnerable today. There wouldn't be as many failsafes and emergency procedures in place. Airport security would be more lacking without my NiBBa Osama yeeting planes into some tall bois.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Nelson Mandela was known for his desire for peace and he can be labelled as a terrorist.

  • If those terrorists infringe on another's dignity, which is the case by definition, then yes, those terrorists are bad. Since that necessarily applies to all terrorists, all terrorists are bad.

    0|0
    0|0
  • ter·ror·ism

    ˈterəˌrizəm/

    noun

    the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    Yes, that is always bad.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes they all are fucking bad wtf they're terrerriosts who kill people and they're two types the first type is frontline terrerriosts whom are brained washes by some false hadiths and some bullshit , the second type the leaders and they have an agenda they don't believe that what they do is religious and all of then deserves death

    0|0
    0|0
  • There is a code of... honour I guess... In war. Terrorism is about deliberately breaking that code to try and get what you want out of a country because they cannot really respond.
    Sort of like when a girl starts hitting a boy in school because she knows he's not allowed to defend himself.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I guess it depends on the political point of view. If a rebellion attacks a president for being corrupt they would see them as terrorist. Fun fact we were considered it during the American revolution when we said we didn't want to be part of Britains nation. However we stated we are a rebellion so its honestly depending on which side of the coin your on.

    0|0
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    52

Recommended myTakes

Loading...