Aye,

Like a sociopath (or whatever they are called) can reason out heinous behavior, and make sound like they are doing the right thing.

What i was trying to get people to do was think from other points of view to what other people thought. When you think about it from other points of view what I said made sence.
Just think. There are people out there who love what Bin Laden is doing and think that he is a hero but the people that don't like him (like the US) hate him and think that he is a terrorist.
My example of the sons of liberty was logical. They did strike out and attack the third pary and in some instances civilians. They tared and feathered tax collectors and toris.
Tared and Feathered- to be dipped in boiling tar and be covered with feathers.

The whole point of this post is to have you guys look from other points of view

[quote="03USMC"]


PIRA -Terrorist
FARC-Terrorist
MRTA-Terrorist
Tupac Amaru -Terrorist
AUC-Terrorist
Bader-Mienhoff- Terrorist
Red Army Faction-Terrorist
Vasque-Terrorist
Sendero Luminoso-Terrorist

quote]


Just a precision, not all vasques are terrorist, just the members of ETA and the people that supports them

Originally Posted by grizzly

What i was trying to get people to do was think from other points of view to what other people thought. When you think about it from other points of view what I said made sence.
Just think. There are people out there who love what Bin Laden is doing and think that he is a hero but the people that don't like him (like the US) hate him and think that he is a terrorist.
My example of the sons of liberty was logical. They did strike out and attack the third pary and in some instances civilians. They tared and feathered tax collectors and toris.
Tared and Feathered- to be dipped in boiling tar and be covered with feathers.

The whole point of this post is to have you guys look from other points of view

Little bit of a difference between tarring and feathering tax collectors and slaughtering 3500 civilians in one day.


Now if you want to engage in a meta-relativistic conversation then I'd say that even there taring and feathering blatantly fails a comparison to slaughtering 3500 civilians. Taring and feathering had the principle purpose of humiliating an offender so as to force him into exile, the idea was to make him leave and never return, not to kill him. The process had a long history as a lawful method of punnishment dating back to the mid 1100s I believe and was a frequent means on the American frontier to do away with criminals, therefore this legal and often-used method was naturally applied to enemies of the rebellion. It was not until the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punnishment did it become wrong. Contrast this with flying planes into civilian buildings, there is a LONG standing prohibition on the purposeful killing of civilians during wartime, it is looked on as patontly wrong. So relativistically, in their time period tarring and feathering a supporter of the enemy was looked on as a normal outgrowth and meant for exile, not death. In our time period, executing one civilian just going about their life is looked on as an atrocity and killing 3500 is an incomprehensible evil. If you still have any doubt how about you ask yourself whether you'd rather be tarred and featherd for public himiliation and exile or immolated by jet fuel in your office?

Comparing George Washington to Osama Bin Laddin is just as I said previously, the outgrowth of intellection without propper study, in short, people who think they are smart but in actuallity are quite ignorant.

Most people realize that freedom fighters, guerillas, or any underground force is necessary if the odds against them are overwhelming. The French Resistance and those like them in other countries gave their lives to support the allied forces. Terrorism is a tool used to make a psychological impact on enemies too powerful to defeat in open battle. It has been used by man against man since the beginning of time. If an army is marching on a road lined by impaled human heads, it gets nervous, when it gets nervous, it makes mistakes.

In the American Civil War, the most dreaded result of the South losing would have been for Lee to take his forces into guerilla warfare. Grant knew that the war would never end if that happened so he gave the South concessions that were unpopular in the North.

The prespective he/she is put in. The English called the "indians" that had the Boston Tea Party terrorists, but we called them heroes.

Yeah dumping a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor was real terrorism.

I really don't have much to add here. Gunner13 said everything I would've already. So just let me add my voice to his.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

Yeah dumping a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor was real terrorism.

I really don't have much to add here. Gunner13 said everything I would've already. So just let me add my voice to his.

It wasn't the tea, it was the statement an economical issues.

To me the key difference is women and children. Terrorists make no distinctions between combatants and civilians, they view them all as the enemy and try to kill them all, including women and children. Heroes on the other hand only try to kill enemy combatants, they might not treat women and children as equals, but they do not treat them as targets either.

In the end it comes down to one thing, history is written by the victors and they decide who is a hero and who is a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Desert_Eagle

It wasn't the tea, it was the statement an economical issues.

But how was that Terrorism? You are still missing the point.


Speaking of points:

MontyB - Yes, I do consider the IRA or the PIRA, as 03USMC mentions, as terrorists. The fit the definition most precisely and where their support comes from is irrelevant.

The line between terrorist, rebel, freedom fighter is NOT growing increasingly blurred. Reread my definition and remember that deliberately targeting innocents, noncombatants and third parties when you have an abundance of other options, quite clearly, IS terrorism (see Gladius' or Damien435's definitions if you don't like mine).

How does the US, or Israel, fit this definition?

"Looking at things from Hizbolah and Hamas points of view" and "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" sure is moral relativism. You do not have to mention right or wrong as you are seeking to place them on the same moral plane with everyone else and if that is not relativism, I do not know what is.

grizzly - tarring and feathering a tax collector, who is a government agent, while harsh, even by the standards of the time, is not terrorism. People can love Bin Laden all they want, but that doesn't change what he is doing or how he is doing it.

Damien435 "In the end it comes down to one thing, history is written by the victors and they decide who is a hero and who is a terrorist."

If this is true, why do we revise history as we find out more or try to reinterpret it? This is an old adage that simply does not stand up, particularly in recent times. The losers do get a voice and do get into the history books or else we would never be having this discussion.