You know, the fact this thread hasn’t become sequential with …
An OP writing challenge! Write an OP that would guarantee a trainwreck.
… is a compliment to all contributors … I really didn’t think you’d last this long. 
I strongly disapprove of the criminal tactics of the Symbionese Liberation Army, but I cannot deny the right to self-determination of the oppressed people of Symbia!
Um… what? If no shots are fired and nothing is blown up, it’s not terrorism. The BTS was more like civil disobedience, if anything.
Or vandalism maybe. I’m not seeing how it inspires terror.
And the ideals weren’t necessarily that great, either. I thought that the modern Tea Party didn’t deserve the name compared to the historical version until I remembered that both claimed to hold ideals that are worthwhile on the face of it, but when you examine them further they are organized and paid for by moneyed interests.
:mad: What, a blindfolded taste-test ain’t good enough for you?! Ya think you could tell a fetus from a newborn?!
Pol Pot meant well.
Except in tea-lovers.
I’ll agree that John Brown was a terrorist whose ideals were right.
I see no evidence to support the contention that first-trimester fetuses are persons; therefore it is impossible to murder them.
I’m not a big fan of European imperialism. Infer my opinion of your third item from that.
Is this how we distringuish terrorist from freedom fighter?
Heck, I would say that the Palestinians have some legitimate beefs. If they used non-violent civil disobedience I would probably be largely in favor of them. Their current tactics however are inexcusable.
^
While Israel’s are just dandy.
Regardless of whether or not you consider Israeli tactics legitimate, I’m not sure they really qualify as terrorism. I can’t imagine any circumstances in which a state’s actions within its own borders would be defined as terrorism, no matter how unpleasant.
That makes no sense to me. Isn’t one of the initial uses of terrorism with respect to the French Revolution? The Jacobins were acting within their own borders in a way that terrorized their populations.
The Khmer Rouge is perhaps a similar example of what I would considered state-sponsored internal terrorism.
I don’t disagree with you. Isreal’s tactics are among the reasons I would probably support the Palestinians if they stopped their terrorism.
The Reign of Terror in France took place against a backdrop of civil war - or at any rate, internal strife - so there was arguably no sovereign government at the time.
To answer the op, I’m not going to say anything about ideals. The problem with ‘their ideals are right…’ is that everyone has different ideals. However, while still not agreeing with the tactics, I do tend to look more kindly towards some ‘terrorists’ than others.
On one hand you have ‘terrorists’ who bomb shopping malls, fly planes into building, blow up London trains, etc. Mass rioting, like the battle for Seattle or the Rodney King LA riots that destroyed tons of property could fall into this, although obviously on a different scale since they weren’t actively murdering people. Wholesale indiscriminate violence against people who have little to do with whatever issue the terrorist are fighting deserves no respect at all.
On the other, there are ‘terrorists’ who directly target their actions at the people responsible for whatever evil they think they’re fighting. For example, the people who killed abortion doctors focused directly on those they viewed as murders. Iraqi/Afghanistan rebels who do attacks on the US military directly targeting what they view as invaders. Groups like ELF that attack animal research facilities directly target those they think are evilly harming animals.
I don’t agree with resorting to violent vigilantism, but I don’t view those who limit their violence to specific goals as harshly as those killing random people. Before there’s even a chance I could be sympathetic to their goals, they’d have to be one of those who’s tactics didn’t encourage attacking people who have nothing to do with their cause.
I state with full explicitness that I do not support any of the terroistics actions or tactics by the groups or persons mentioned in the OP. I would not approve of them committing such actions and were I acquainted or in communication with them would try to dissuade them.
Would that apply to heads of state and their actions as well?
Yes.