is Terrorism terrorism

No terrorism is not justified. Why are you asking this question. What did US ever do before 9/11. After 9/11 they have started attacking. Then again if you can't take down a more powerfull country then don't attack them. Don't start violence. Terrorists have started it. When India was under British rule Britain was the superpower. Indians never took the pathway of terrorism. They never killed innocent British civilians. They still fought with the British army or took the path of non-violence. It took them 190 years but they did it. Nowadays India is being attacked by terrorist all over. Why? Because we are strong. But we don't even do anything to them. They start it all the time. Why because terrorists are phsycos and they don't deserve to live.

Sometimes there can be a very thin line between freedom fighting and terrorism. This is very well pictured in "V for Vendetta". Corect me if i'm wrong but didn't the jews in 1920s and 1930s use terorist methods against british to become independant. Gerilya tactics was alsoo used against nazis touring the WW2 and against USSR in many Eastern-Europian countris. Both nazis and communists called their oponents terrosrists and criminals, but they are respected as freedom fighter today.

Terrorism is not more widespread because when used too much against the wrong enemy, that enemy commits genocide against your people. There is an old saying that what goes around comes around. That is why there is not more terrorism.

TERRORISM NOTHING BUT THE SHOSHA CREATED BY THE WEST AND TO SUPPORT THIS THEY PRODUCED 9/11 AND 7/7

You miss the point of terrorism entirely, The only requisite for terrorism to work is not in the DOING one merely has to make you believe it will be done.

No terrorism cannot be justified at any case. Individual revenge/hatred/vengeance is the cause of these acts for which innocent people are used and also killed. God save this world.

terrorism is never justified.against a larger power you can do defence,and for defence you can kill also.but thats not terrorism.terrorism are stray acts of violence aimed at destroying life and innocent people who have got nothing to do with it. and i guess you dont understand the word terrorism and you want it to be widespread??? terrorism caues terror,you want terror to be widespread?

Friend if ammerica does it that is war for justice if others does the same it is known as terrorism.every terrorist group training ground is america only.Osama bin ladan is trained by americans to use them against ussr but fate turned it around.

terrorism is an "curtain" for politics

I think that terrorism is never justified. Also, there is no justification to states to invade ohters (e.g. Iraq or Afghanistan) just because they were attacked. I agree with the guy who said that India took another way. I hope that globalization would came along with globalization of rights, but it seems that this is not what it is happening. To make my point clear: The reasons because terrorism is growing are sometimes right but terrorism is not the way. Freedom and respect are (for both sides). The ONU has a lot to do, but they are just a bunch of guys looking outside the problems and many times supporting the wrong side.

Terrorism is terror unleashed on a country by some pop-heads. So I dont think no one shd be a part of this terrorism act. There is no need to use terrorism if u wanna fight lets fight straight and hard. That will be repectable and inscribe in history what a citizen u were and how unmercifully u were killed. Your opponent will be dis-respected and lose ground of his standing.

yes terrorosm is terrorsim terrorist is behive like a animal

HI!I dont like terrorism or any act of terrorism.It is painful that during the act of terrorism are killed innocent people,and this is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government.The majority in any country at war is often innocent.But if by neglect, ignorance,or helplessness,they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for ours.

i dont know it is very huge debate.

yes it is.the act of terrorism is not to be done

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The "intent to intimidate or coerce" is important. Just like in most crimes relating to theft (larceny, etc.) there must be the intent to deprive the rightful owner of their property. If you are the rightful owner, it can't be larceny. Even if you just think you are the rightful owner (but you're not), it still can't be larceny. The intent matters. For terrorism, the intent is to cause terror. To intimidate or coerce. Let's say you were attacking what you thought was a military target during time of war, a weapons bunker about to launch missiles against your homeland. Your intent is not to intimidate, it's to defend your home against an acknowledged enemy in wartime.

Unfortunately one persons terrorist is another persons hero, it has always happened and always will, (Think about William Tell and the Austrians, Robin Hood & Sherrif of Nottingham, David & Goliath) all are heroes or villians depending on your point of view. I can think of very few circumstances when acts of terrorism can be justified, however if your country has been taken over (by war with another country, or by a revolutionary tyrant) then some people may justify terrorism to themselves. Most terrorism however seems to be caused by people who don't have any valid reason to cause terror.

terrorism is not justified by any cause.u cannot kill innocent people for ur own cause.what is there fault.

This was the begining of terrorism. In his November 3 victory speech, President Bush, sounding the keynote of his second administration, pledged to 'fight this war on terror with every resource of our national power.' By saying 'this' rather than 'the' Bush stressed the palpable, near-at-hand quality of the war whose symbols have grown to surround us in the last three years--the tilted barrels of security cameras, BioWatch pathogen-sniffers, and all the rest of the technology of security and surveillance that Matthew Brzezinski somewhat overexcitedly details in Fortress America. Voters, at least, have been impressed. Responding to the exit pollers' question 'Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?' 32 percent of Bush supporters named 'Terrorism' (as against 5 percent of Kerry supporters), 85 percent of Bush supporters said that the country was 'safer from terrorism' in 2004 than it was in 2000, and 79 percent said that the war in Iraq 'has improved the long-term security of the United States.' Bush's successful conflation of security at home and military aggression abroad, his insistence that Iraq 'is the central front of the war on terror,' was the bravura rhetorical gambit that drove much of his electoral strategy.