Topic 1: “Terrorism is never justified.” Critically assess the claim. Under what circumstances, if any, would you think terrorism is justified? How would you answer the person who offers what you think is the best argument against your conclusion?

I am always leery to use the word never when critically assessing something, especially a controversial issue like terrorism. Who can honestly say that terrorism is under no circumstances justified? Obviously the people conducting the terrorism think it is justified to them. What is even more perplexing is that the term terrorism is relative and one sided. Who we call terrorists may call themselves defenders of their nation.
Terrorism, as we now know it, is most troubling to me because I feel as if we do not have enough information to totally condemn it. However, if we had all the facts surrounding terrorism, or even one specific act of terrorism, I would still say that there is at least one instance in which terrorism can be justified. When all other peaceful measures have been taken to get a point across and the point is critical, such as maintaining ones way of life, I do think terrorism can be used. From our own history we’ve learned that not every message can be conveyed without violence. If one nation finds it justified destroying ones way of life because it does not coincide with their own, then I see no reason why that country using violence to show they will not comply is not justified as well. Surely the aggressive act of invading a nation to, per say, force them into a democracy will result in the death of innocent people. If that nation exhausted all forms of communicating with the aggressor, then a setting off of a bomb or two to scare their people into a ceasefire would undoubtedly yield a few justified murders of their own.
What is an important issue to explain when talking about the rightness or