Are there justifications to terrorism?

 "The Sirens of Baghdad" by Yasmina Khadra

The book is scary. The main character is a terrorist, while reading his life story I recognized that he passed through extremely hard time. In other words, I "understood" him. That is why I felt scared. Although I condemn terrorism and consider killing innocent people as an unforgettable crime, I could show some understanding to a terrorist! At first, I come up to the conclusion that there are justifications to terrorism. Humiliation, oppression, occupation can lead a peaceful people to violence. But…is violence the right response to a tragedy or injustice? By choosing the violence, the young boy in the book failed to calm his anger, failed his life…

I have never judge a person who became a terrorist!

and

I will never judge them!!

There are definitely too many reasons for them..

I believed it, I still believe n will alwasy believe…

If the life had forced me too much, I would be terrorist too! I really say true..  :))

I have read a book, then there was a man > He killed 3 innocent ppl..and when he confessed it, Ohh it was super.. He said so well.. Give to many reason to kill innocent ppl!

He said >> sometimes u shuold kill innocent ppl, To make true, something wronge!

To kill is >> the worst word in all languages.. most of ppl hate ths word..

But it is too neccessary, to attract attention something wronge…

So he effected me so much…

In this book the strong message is that violence is not the right response to the tragedy.

But what is the right one? the dialogue? I think it's difficult because there are no honest people who are ready to listen to an opressed boy. This is the real tragedy.  

There is no justification to target and murder innocent civilians.

When it comes to purposefully spilling innocent blood, the ends do not justify the means.

There is no justification to target and murder innocent civilians

but you found justifications to all Israel murders.

Israel doesn't target people on purpose, but may sometimes in the heat of battle hit them by accodent. Terrorist groups like Hamas always have and always will target civilians indicsriminately, instead of soldiers.

You had to go back 43 years to come up with an example?

Live in the present man.

Here's the info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shredder

Another example of how every battle Israel wins, is called a massacre by the Arabs.

3 killed civilians. How about you read the rest out loud? Why did Israel assault the village?

Here: "Military deaths: 16 killed 54 wounded"

Don't surgically just pick out the the statistics that you want, then ignore the rest.

Just so that you know, I read an entire book on the 1967 war, I know what I'm talking about. 'Six Days' by Jeremy Bowen.  (No, he's not Jewish)

There was no 'Palestine' back then. The village belonged to Jordan.

3 is less than 16. I don't know what you mean by civilian casualties exceeding ilitary ones. Either way, of course onlyArab civilians could have been killed, it was in their own territory.

Surely in wars there is a large number of casualties. I ask if their relatives have the right to take the revenge?

Yes.

Of course.  Let's see the logic than compared to the original topic:

I have grievances against the West, so therefore I'm justified in doing whatever I want in retaliation, including hijacking two planes and driving them into New York, killing thousands of people?

Does that sound about right?

They kill some of my people overseas, so therefore I can suicide bomb, murder, shoot their men,women and children in their country?