A5 RIHLA #24

---

"RIHLA 24"

In my opinion, violence is not justifiable in order to make a point or having your opinion heard. A person does not need to use violence because their opinion is not heard, or heard and ignored, or heard and contradicted. You just have to say what you're going to say and if the people or person listening to you does not agree then just drop it unless you have to go on further but you never have to use violence to prove any these things. The only time you have to use this is when there is war other than that violence is not justifiable; people can settle things normally, civilized, organized, and like regular day-to-day human beings. However, when a threat is involved and war is going to happen, or you are attacked first then I believe that violence is justifiable. I believe that when the United States is threatened of war or other harm and then are attacked, then they should attack back and violence is justifiable at that moment. For example, if America is being threatened by North Korea about attacking with explosives, then I think violence is justifiable as long as the United States is attacked first. On the other hand, in other things in life violence shouldn't be used and shouldn't be justifiable; violence should only be justifiable in wars.

---