When Brian Clark narrowly survived the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, would he be glad to say that the attack was justified? Terrorism has a lengthy, notorious history dating back to centuries. Yet, the modern terrorist has learnt tactics from the newer technologies available and has caused nothing but disorder. From the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo Subway to the bombing of the Mumbai trains, the ideology of the few extreme has caused immense devastation and misery to the common civilian, who bears the brunt of it. When lives are put at risk, can terrorism be justified?
As millions tuned in to the TV to watch the 2008 Mumbai attacks, they had one question in mind; why? In the name of god, slaughter and violence is commenced. When the death toll inside the Taj Hotel continued to rise, it cannot be safe to assume it as being justifiable. Extreme radical ideology guided the terrorists to continue with their ploy, causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the people affected. As human beings, we all are guaranteed the Right to Live with Dignity. When pain is inflicted upon a human being, can it be justifiable to say that they deserved the pain, even if they have done nothing incorrect to provoke it? Yet, their fallacious mindset continues to brew a maelstrom, violating the very principles that allows any human being to live peacefully. As such, the unnecessary pain and suffering brought forward by terrorism cannot be justified, as every human has the right to live without unnecessary pain and suffering.
Yet, the terrorists often claim to justify their actions by claiming them as 'acts of god'. However, the same God is a benevolent entity; where do they get their unpronounced version from? Neither in the books of ultimate theism has there ever been a god so unjust. If the same God loves everyone, why does it want to harm other human beings? Doesn't this mean that, God preferentially discriminates one person from another? Yet, God loves everyone. This is a contradiction; God must either love everyone or remain apathetic. However, we know that God is the almighty and the benevolent, as proclaimed in any Holy book. Therefore we infer that God loves everyone and does not discriminate. This means that, the radical view on religion of the terrorist is a corrupt and immoral version of the original message that God intended. God does not sanction killing anyone anywhere, so killing in the name of god is unjustified religiously. It is hence dismissible to claim their actions as 'acts of god', so Terrorism can never be justified religiously.
Terrorism has neither a scientific nor a philosophical foundation; neither in the works of Einstein nor the books of Plato has there ever been written that Terrorism has an understanding in both branches. Philosophy seeks to unite harmony and human nature together; science seeks to increase the knowledge human beings have. Yet, terrorism stands against this very notions. By seeking to destroy the foundations human beings stand on, it disrupts the ability of mankind to lead for human beings are here only as the result of decades of philosophy and understanding of the world as a whole. When acts of terrorism are committed, it propels humanity backwards for knowledge and philosophy have failed to make their impact. By destroying humanity, a part of knowledge is lost. Now, would it be justifiable to say that terrorism has a scientific or a philosophic basis? Terrorism seeks to destroy these two, so any attempt to make a correlation is a contradiction. As such, any claims to justify terrorism scientifically or philosophically is null and void.
Culturally, terrorists have destroyed ancient priceless monuments like the two Buddha's in Afghanistan forever destroying the heritage and culture of the societies that built it. By destroying heritages, terrorism undoes years of celebration and history. Heritages are important because they are a milestone in human history. They display the apt and the knowledge of our ancients and shows us that human beings are capable species. They are the symbol of a culture that built it. However, terrorism seeks to undo this. By decimating large swaths of cultural heritages, like how ISIS destroys priceless monuments in Syria, the terrorist group displays itself as nothing but lacking morality and intellect. By destroying the symbols of a culture, they destroy the part of that culture. As such, that part of their culture is lost forever and let slip into oblivion. Is this justifiable to let suffer a culture? The very act of destroying a culture makes terrorism culturally unjustifiable .
Terrorism is the child of nothing but immoral and inhumane thoughts. Terrorism is neither justified ethically nor scientifically. It seeks only to destroy and spread malice. Due to its malice, human beings continue to suffer. Terrorism is nothing but short of a corrupt collection of thoughts of the troubled few and as argued above, it can and never will be justified.
As millions tuned in
toon the TV to watch the 2008 Mumbai attacks, they had one question in their mind; why? In the name of god, slaughter and violence isare commenced. When the death tolls inside the Taj Hotel, it continued to riserising , it cannot be safe to assume it as being justifiable. Extremely radical ideology guided the terrorists to continue with their ploy, causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the people affectedbodies . As human beings, we all are guaranteed the Right to Live with Dignity. When pain is inflicted upon a human being, can it be justifiable to say that they deserved the pain, even if they have done nothing incorrect to provoke it? (you have problems with way to arrange sentences)