Is terrorism a crime with a purpose ?

You didn't name your country! Why? In Canada we value human rights! Religion and State are separate. Men and women are equal under the law. The Golden Rule says,"do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" This is paramount to our life style, and it shows, because people the world over, want to immigrate to Canada. Canada is a Great place to live! We are safe in our work place in the day time, and safe in our homes at night. We know our kids are safe at school, and we know there will not be any terrorist bombs planted along our roads. When we do catch a suspected terrorist we don't kill him. He in entitled to a fair trail, where he will be found guilty or will be set free.

Here in the UK, up until quite recently, we had terrorist problems with the IRA. As terrorist organisations always have a "cause", and need widespread funding and moral support/protection from people who aren't themselves terrorists, but who support their cause, yes terrorism is a different type of thing altogether. Basically, most people in the world despise violence and destruction, but if they feel that there's no hope for them and the terrorists are the only people acknowledging their plight, and seem to be carrying out these acts for the purpose of making things better for them, then they'll be more likely to support the terrorists. There is a saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", and basically which term you choose to use depends on whether you back the terrorist organisation or not. The only way to stop terrorism is to tackle the problems and injustices which the terrorists use to gain support. Take away their popularity, and you take away their power. This is why the US and UK's presence in Iraq has increased the terrorist problem there - they've become a common enemy of the general populus, and the terrorists have that feeling to play on, to gain a foothold. In the Lebanon, when Israel started their mini-war there last year, the Lebanese army was virtually non-existent and had no weaponry to protect themselves, so the "terrorist/freedom-fighting" branch of Hamas were able to gain popular support amongst the people of that country, by acting as their army. Had Israel been stopped by the UN from taking this military action against the Lebanon, Hamas would not have gained support in the Lebanon. Where rich powerful countries, or countries who are protected and supported by rich powerful countries, ride roughshod over small defenseless countries, and bully them, this is the cause of the spread of terrorism. As I say, if the "Allies" wanted to wage a war on terror, they should have been working on tackling the issues which lead to terrorism in the world, not legitimising the terrorist groups by taking military action on countries where they may or may not have been. The whole nature of "freedom fighting/terrorism" being a criminal offense, is down to the fact that it's not a legitimate war. Call it a war, and this gives it a legitimacy in the eyes of the terrorists, which it shouldn't have.

Terrorism is a crime with very little purpose, and people who terrorize others have issues.

Terrorism is an profession . Those unemployed or i can say cannot able to earn money minded persons created this professon. Whether they are under criminal law or not they should be crushed and to be aloowed as a last chance to live with harmony in peace. Not only they are professionals in nature they are weakening their countrys' economic growth .

I wonder if we looked through histories pages and put them into modern contexts whether could classify those acts as terrorism. The holy crusades where people were killed outright to convert them to christianity are a prime example of this. The systematic murder and annihilation of native american indians and australian aborigines to my mind was a form of terrorism, Adolf Hitler and the extermination attempt of the jewish race all thats is happening here in current times is another Religous group trying to convert the masses to their way of belief by killing those who dont agree to their way of thinking. How do we respond is by elected officials bringing in archaic laws to stem the freedom of speech and playing straight into the hands of terroists by meeting violence with violence. I am not anti war but pro peace for a world where as in martin luther kings exclaimed i dream of the day where a man is not judged by the colour of his skin but by the content of his character and so hope that by communicating with our fellow man and living in harmony that so much more can be acheived its a dream sure but without a dream nothing can be achieved. lets make a small start by smiling at a stranger today and let those smiles gather in force around the globe for its virtually impossible to hold a negative thought while smiling. Live and let live killing under any guise is not a cause its just another name for pure thuggery. :)

Terrorism hurts innocent lives. For me is it never right to hurt other people just to drive home your reasons. The end does not justify the means.

Well, there is some logic to what your colleagues said. Terrorism always has a purpose, whether noble or not. I'd imagine that some terrorists are under the impression that they are fighting for a good purpose, but of course, 'good' is a relative term. The question is not whether terrorism is a moral thing, because morality is subjective. The question is whether the ends justify the means. The value of life in the society that the terrorism takes place in would be a good indicator of whether or not terrorism is worth it. Are innocent lives worth a new government - or new ideal? Hitler killed others for a purpose, so were his means justified? Should we respect him for killing millions of innocent men, women, and children for the sake of a "master race"? The next time your colleagues say that terrorists shouldn't be treated by criminals because they have a purpose, catch them off guard with an thought provoking question. If, to achieve what they think is an good and just purpose, a terrorist kills the friends, family, and everyone your colleagues hold dear to achieve that purpose, would they still think such actions are justified? Would they understand that the destruction of all they hold dear was necessary to achieve the purposes of people they've never met? Is it just to kill innocents for what you believe will better society? What's more, can you say a society is better if you hurt and killed innocent people to achieve it? Again, it all depends on the value of life.

I probably will catch heat for this, but I believe terrorism can sometimes have a good purpose. For instance, the colonists were technically terrorists right? Their terrorism, using war and violence to overthrow occupation of England was good for America. I bet the people of England didn't particularly enjoy those damn colonists and their acts of terrorism! Right now America is fighting terrorism in Iraq, where they probably see us as terrorists running around in their country. I don't sympathize for people who kill innocent people, but every terrorist sees their cause as THE cause to fight and die for. While the one they are fighting sees them as evil, and a threat to THEIR cause. I lost it somewhere in there.