Whats the diifernse between a terrorist and a hero??

[Whispering Death]

I will speak for my previous life as a tea loving Bostonian when I say it was very traumatic to see all that fine tea going into the bay. If that's how they treat something as sacred as tea imagine what they'd do to people!!!

 

[chewie_nz]

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

can't see why it's a disputed article though....?

 

[rkmac48]

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.


To Sadaam Hussein, terrorists are heros.

To *Americans* our troops are heros.




Of course, in our world there are absolutes, and the fact that terrorists are terrorists is one of them. Michael Moore would have you believe that terrorists are courageous minutemen, but it's not so.


Thanks God that our heros are wasting theirs.

 

[grizzly]

Terrorism-The use force and or theats to frighten people, governments, ect. into cooperating.

Is that not what the sons of liberty was trying to do. Frighten the british monarch into cooperating so they could form their own country

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.[/i].

Thats what Ive been saying that whole time. Im not sure if I made it claer enough though. If i didn't then its my fault. You have to look at it in the eyes of other people.

And Whispering Death I was never compareing Washington to Bin Laden I was simply using the as examples. The tar and feathering wasn't used as a form of punishment for the example i said. It was a use of force to show the british that they wouldn't listen.

 

[behemoth79]

It all depends on who wins the battle at the end. Should Iraq have defended against the American invasion, it would be the Americans who terrorized Iraqis with their "shock and awe" methods. But since America was victorous, any action taken by Iraqi forces are considered acts of terror.

 

[Desert_Eagle]

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.

That is what I'm saying. During America's Revolutionary War the British early American attacks were terrorism, but most patriots thought it acts of herosim.

 

[Gunner13]

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.

That is what I'm saying. During America's Revolutionary War the British early American attacks were terrorism, but most patriots thought it acts of herosim.

Again, look at the methods they use and who they target and it becomes clear (what is this Groudhog Day?).

 

[MontyB]

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.

That is what I'm saying. During America's Revolutionary War the British early American attacks were terrorism, but most patriots thought it acts of herosim.

Again, look at the methods they use and who they target and it becomes clear (what is this Groudhog Day?).

I think you are arguing terrorism as a definition verses the popular use of the word.
I am not doubting your definition's correctness but the "real" use of the word has come to symbolise pretty much anyone who fights back against a larger and recognised authority.

 

[Gunner13]

I think you are arguing terrorism as a definition verses the popular use of the word.

Not arguing anything, we are having a discussion about what terrorism is and is not.

I am not doubting your definition's correctness but the "real" use of the word has come to symbolise pretty much anyone who fights back against a larger and recognised authority

Very likely, which is just intellectually sloppy and can lead to a waste of time and energy (just look at the postings trying to compare appels and oranges in this thread )

 

[MontyB]

Not arguing anything, we are having a discussion about what terrorism is and is not.

My mistake what I should have said was I think you are using the true definition of the term terrorism where others are using the popular definition of the word.

 

[Gunner13]

Understood and I did understand the first time as you were clear enough (I think). I am not convinced that other people grasp this though.

 

[grizzly]

Understood and I did understand the first time as you were clear enough (I think). I am not convinced that other people grasp this though.

Who are you talking to.?????? :?:

 

[Damien435]

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.

Only because we allow them to. Today the SS are considered some of the worst terrorists in the history of the world, do you think that would be the case if Germany had won the war? Granted this is just one ignorant American saying this but I don't think Hitler would have allowed the soldiers of the SS to be viewed as anything other than heroes and I bet his successors would have done the same thing. But we were victorious and because we believe in this thing called freedom of speech we allow history to be re-evaluated and re-written (so to say).

 

[Shadowalker]

Its only more recently in history that the the losers acts are recorded accuratly. I wonder how much of the history passed down from the egyptians, romans, greeks etc. is true and has not been edited by historians or writers

 

[Gunner13]

Understood and I did understand the first time as you were clear enough (I think). I am not convinced that other people grasp this though.

Who are you talking to.?????? :?:

MontyB primarily. We are having discussions on several topics and while my response was right after his post, the page break separated them - sorry for the loss of continuity.

 

[grizzly]

MontyB primarily. We are having discussions on several topics and while my response was right after his post, the page break separated them - sorry for the loss of continuity.

Don't Worry about it Gunner

Damien435 You make a very good point. If the Nazis had won WWII The SS and SA would not have the same views as they do today.
They and Hitler would be viewd as Heros of Germany, and Hitler and the other Nazis would have made sur of it.

 

[Locke]

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

can't see why it's a disputed article though....?

it is a disputed issue because history is always written by the victors and very rarely does it document from the loosing side. there may be two causes but in the end, despite how well people fought on both sides and how honorable (or not) they were, one side will always be tagged as terrorists or loosers.

few people are objective enough to say "yes that person was a good and worth opponent, they fought well" because this does not conform to sterotypes and it is much easier just to hate someone than to consider thier humanity

 

[Gunner13]

there may be two causes but in the end, despite how well people fought on both sides and how honorable (or not) they were, one side will always be tagged as terrorists or loosers. few people are objective enough to say "yes that person was a good and worth opponent, they fought well" because this does not conform to sterotypes and it is much easier just to hate someone than to consider thier humanity

This is the exception, not the rule.

Although conflict has become increasingly bitter and more polarized in the last 60 years, it is still possible for nation states or groups to fight hard, but well, and emerge as a loosing side but not be seen as terrorists.

For example, neither Great Britain or Argentina would be considered terrorists after the Falklands War, nor do I consider the defeated Iraqi Army to have been a group of terrorists. They fought for a corrupt and worthless regime that was controlled by thugs and were associated with terrorist elements (e.g. the fedaeen), but the majority of the Iraqi Army did not conduct themselves that way.

 

[MontyB]

MontyB primarily. We are having discussions on several topics and while my response was right after his post, the page break separated them - sorry for the loss of continuity.

Don't Worry about it Gunner

Damien435 You make a very good point. If the Nazis had won WWII The SS and SA would not have the same views as they do today.
They and Hitler would be viewd as Heros of Germany, and Hitler and the other Nazis would have made sur of it.

I wouldnt put money on that as the SA wasnt particually liked by either Hitler nor the SS (who saw them as rivals) also I dont think anyone sees the SS or Hitler as "terrorists" but instead mass murderers (I would also refine this statement to include only some elements of the SS and not all).

 

[grizzly]

I wouldnt put money on that as the SA wasnt particually liked by either Hitler nor the SS (who saw them as rivals) also I dont think anyone sees the SS or Hitler as "terrorists" but instead mass murderers (I would also refine this statement to include only some elements of the SS and not all).

I was just talking in a general term MontyB.