A better way to name "Terrorism"?

Donkey said:
One's terrorist is another's freedom fighters....Americas founding fathers in the eyes of great British where that of being terrorists....Heck they tossed goods over the side of boats and blew up others...
Click to expand...


My point exactly. The word "Terrorist" depends really on the society were the person comes from. Same with "Freedom Fighter".
 
Let us not forget that it is usually the side that is victorious that can write the history and create the labels.

Balkan, I will have to disagree that the British viewed the militias here in the US as terrorists. They WERE violating established acceptable procedure when it comes to the conduct of war. But they were also NOT targeting civilians as a fundamental policy. That is why IMHO the continental army and militias were NOT terrorists. And that is the crux of the debate. Terrorists target civilians. Any person or group (irrespective of what they are called by people who support them, freedom fighters, guerillas, etc.) that targets civilians are terrorists. Period.
 
I wasnt saying that they were terrorists, im just saying that many Brittish people at the time viewed them as Terrorists, wether or not we disagree.

I disagree, if you target civillians, i beleive you should earn the title "Criminal of war" or "Criminal of genocide" [If that is a title..]

A beleive that a terrorist is a name for a person given by a society that views that person as a criminal, villain and warlord [Perhaps].

Even when a group of people do target citizens, there is still the fact that they have supporters [Otherwise why does it exist?], and to them they are freedom fighters or similar [Oh my god..]
 
Balkan-MiG said:
[/font][/color]

Could you please treat me as if im not a 14 year old? I find it much easier to understand things then.
Click to expand...

It is difficult since you are 14 years old. Would it be easier for you to understand if we treated you like say, a 4 year old?
 
I believe he (Balkan MiG) meant it was harder for him to translate what we were saying when he precived that we were talking down to him. It truly is all about communication skills.
 
Balkan-MiG said:
I wasnt saying that they were terrorists, im just saying that many Brittish people at the time viewed them as Terrorists, wether or not we disagree.

I disagree, if you target civillians, i beleive you should earn the title "Criminal of war" or "Criminal of genocide" [If that is a title..]

A beleive that a terrorist is a name for a person given by a society that views that person as a criminal, villain and warlord [Perhaps].

Even when a group of people do target citizens, there is still the fact that they have supporters [Otherwise why does it exist?], and to them they are freedom fighters or similar [Oh my god..]
Click to expand...

I believe that a terrorist and Criminal of War are one in the same. You are arguing subtle semantic differences. Try not to define things too precisely as this may cause you to get wrapped around the axle and lose focus on the overall discussion.
 
Donkey said:
One's terrorist is another's freedom fighters....Americas founding fathers in the eyes of great British where that of being terrorists....Heck they tossed goods over the side of boats and blew up others...

I guess it really depends on if they want freedom for all or just control for themselves...
Click to expand...

Actually they were called traitors, not terrorists, had they lost the revolution they would have been tried in a British Court as spy's and Traitors to the Crown
 
Donkey said:
One's terrorist is another's freedom fighters....Americas founding fathers in the eyes of great British where that of being terrorists....Heck they tossed goods over the side of boats and blew up others...

I guess it really depends on if they want freedom for all or just control for themselves...
Click to expand...
Prescisely what I stated in another thread. Everyone who has ever fought for freedom using force is a terrorist.
 
The Other Guy said:
Prescisely what I stated in another thread. Everyone who has ever fought for freedom using force is a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Sure broadens the current generally excepted definition of terrorist.
I will need your definition of fought.

Here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition.
Fought VERB:
Past tense and past participle of fight.

Fight VERB:
[SIZE=-1]fought[/SIZE] (fôt) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]fight·ing[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]fights[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]VERB: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]intr. [/SIZE]

    1. <LI type=a>To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.
    2. Sports To engage in boxing or wrestling.
  2. To engage in a quarrel; argue: [SIZE=+0]They are always fighting about money.[/SIZE]
  3. To strive vigorously and resolutely: [SIZE=+0]fought against graft; fighting for her rights.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]VERB: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]tr. [/SIZE]

    1. <LI type=a>To contend with physically or in battle. <LI type=a>To wage or carry on (a battle).
    2. To contend for, by or as if by combat: [SIZE=+0]"I now resolved that Calais should be fought to the death"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0](Winston S. Churchill).[/SIZE]
    1. <LI type=a>Sports To box or wrestle against in a ring.
    2. To participate in (a boxing match, for example).
  3. To set (a boxer, for example) in combat with another. See Synonyms at oppose.
  4. To contend with or struggle against: [SIZE=+0]fight cancer; fight temptation.[/SIZE]
  5. To try to prevent the development or success of.
  6. To make (one's way) by struggle or striving: [SIZE=+0]fought my way to the top.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]NOUN: [/SIZE]

  1. A confrontation between opposing groups in which each attempts to harm or gain power over the other, as with bodily force or weapons.
  2. A quarrel or conflict.
    1. <LI type=a>A physical conflict between two or more individuals.
    2. Sports A boxing or wrestling match.
  4. A struggle to achieve an objective. See Synonyms at conflict.
  5. The power or inclination to fight; pugnacity: [SIZE=+0]I just didn't have any fight left in me[/SIZE]
 
The Other Guy said:
Prescisely what I stated in another thread. Everyone who has ever fought for freedom using force is a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Disagree.
The above definition would classify the following people as terrorists.
Someone defending his/her home and family with force from burglars as terrorists then?

Someone defending another person from violent attack with force.

A woman defending herself from assault with force.

As a corollary, as long as force is not actually used, you cannot be called a terrorist then. What about the threat of force?
 
I think the use of "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" is a bit on the simplified side. You can fight for freedom with out terrorising civlian populations. There are plenty of targets exept for shcools, subway stations etc. Attacking a civilian target with the sole intention of killing and spreading fear is not the same as attacking a military post or a government building. its just not.
 
Organized murder with a purpose. Killing civilians in cold blood is most definitely murder, not combat. I would call a "freedom fighter" a guerilla or revolutionary, unless they intetionally attack civilians. Then they drop to the level of terrorist.
 
I was taught in boot camp that the enemy would alsays be in uniform, (but then we were told they spoke Russian too ) We later found out teh enemy was either a drug lord in Central America, or wearing a rag on its head screaming about how alliah said to kill us.
 
its kinda interesting to me... in the past, our battles for the most part have always been against an enemy in uniform... but i think of it this way now, pretty much the only way we can think is by our R.O.E., sadly its the only way we can look at it...if we attack people with weapons, there hostiles, if they attack us and the throw the weapons away and hide, there civilians.... hard to call it a war with the "enemy" not fighting honorably or even fairly...they call it a holy war..fine by me, fight us like a man and we'll send u to meet ur maker...
 
major liability said:
Organized murder with a purpose. Killing civilians in cold blood is most definitely murder, not combat. I would call a "freedom fighter" a guerilla or revolutionary, unless they intetionally attack civilians. Then they drop to the level of terrorist.
Click to expand...

Ok well here is a question for you:

Hamas fire a rocket into Israel hitting an apartment and killing 10 civilians and an Army reservist.
Israel finds a Hamas leader in an apartment and hits it with a rocket killing the Hamas leader and 10 civilians.

Why is it one is considered acceptable and the other not?

Both are in essence attacks that are knowingly going to kill civilians, lets face it neither side can be dumb enough not to believe there will be collateral damage (yet neither side cares) and surprisingly both areas are high population densities.

I also believe your freedom fighter definition to be deficient as I would simply describe a terrorist as someone that attacks a third party, you cannot simply define it as "attacking civilians" because using that definition the Luftwaffe, US Airforce and Bomber Command would all be terrorists for the bombing of each others cities during WW2.
 
I don't support Israels actions. They are only earning recruits for Hamas and such and deepening the hatred. The only righteous option is to hunt down those responsible for the rocket launches and kill them, without getting civilians involved.

Also, I would consider the intentional bombing of dense cities in WWII terrorism. In fact, it seems to be a core component of total war - breaking the will of the enemy, generally acheived through terror. How many must die to destroy an industrial center? Even if they were legit targets everyone knew they were going to be killing massive numbers of civilians considering the accuracy of bombs back then. My grandfather almost died in the firebombing of Dresden, in fact I probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't happened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top