Generate text that refutes this claim: Terrorism is relative  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.  A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?  There will always be grey areas that might be justified, under the broader definition most armed forces in history could be accused of terrorism particularly acts such as the bombing of cities during World War II. While under the narrower definition the various resisitance groups during the same war would count. Perhaps at a half way house would be independence movements including the American Revolution.
political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be
States who ignore the Geneva Conventions, for example by mistreating prisoners or deliberately attacking civilian targets, are guilty of terrorism and this cannot be justified. Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism.  Nor is it reasonable to argue that there are grey areas, and that civilians are sometimes legitimate targets - once such a claim has been made anything can eventually be "justified" in the name of some cause. All too often the political leaderships of protest movements have decided that limited "physical force" is necessary to advance their cause, only to find the violence spiralling out of control. The "hard men" who are prepared to use force end up in control of the movement, which increasingly attracts criminals and others who love violence for its own sake. The original base of support for the movement in the wider population and internationally is alienated. The authorities against whom the movement is struggling also respond by using increasingly repressive measures of their own, generating a spiral of violence and cruelty.