Is Terrorism morally defensible?

Comrades, I have been assigned the task to write an report on the morality of terrorism. However, fearing that I will executed for my incompetence of finding sufficient information for for the report I ask of you on your thoughts on the issue.

Uhh that might a tough one to argue for the morality of terrorist, Im sure some of are more intelligent members of the forum could find some ways to determine morality of terrorist for you.

Are you asked to argue for, against, or just generally provide points for both sides?

providing points for both sides on the matter would be appreciated.

Well I haven't really done any real research on the issue but here's my two cents.

First we should look at the question posed to us - we can see that it's an opinion based question. Since the meaning of morality is relative we should establish that this is the primary difference between either side of the argument.

mo·ral·i·ty/məˈralətē/

Noun:

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
2. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

Since that 'good' and 'bad' behavior are largely subjective and taught issues then we could said that terrorism is morally defensible to the terrorists because they truly believe they are doing what is right and are willing to end their life for what they believe.

This is a big ol' opinion based nonsense question. I don't like it.

You could argue that the French revolutionaries were terrorists (the Jacobins).

"You know... a couple hundred years ago, a couple of guys named Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were branded as traitors by the British. Now they are called patriots. In time, so shall we..."
- General Francis X Hummel

Only if you're NOD. Fuck the Global Fascist Initiative!

ter·ror·ism

noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

In some very desperate situations I guess I'd understand a little violence and intimidation. I could never agree with mass killings of any sort though.

In a word, no. There comes a point where the ends cannot justify the means, and this is one of them. Terrorism is never right.

Morality judges many things, but we're not always asked to defend the morality of most bad or good things, so, why is this being questioned now?

The American Revolutionaries were considered terrorists. The French Revolutionaries were considered terrorists. Are you saying what they did was not justifiable?

Well yeah, the reason they were called terrorists is because they did some pretty unjustifiable things. Just because they won in the end doesn't make what they did right.

Actually we still do. Benedict Arnold is also a hero.

The Boston Tea Party wasnt justifiable?

George Washington once had some mutineers executed by their friends as an "example". I'm pretty sure he meant something along those lines.

Too right. As an Englishman, I find such wanton slaughter of tea to be completely immoral.
Anyway, i'd say terrorism is morally defensible. It simply depends on whether you accept the defence.

Morality is a relative term, you should look at the underlying causes that make terrorism occur in the first place, and what conditions drive political movements to adopt such tactics.