what's GOOD about terrorism?(for once)

oh you had to know this was coming. and yesi expect the staff to treat any detractors, trollers or those who speak negatively on the matter as harshly as in a similar thread.

sometimes i think terrorism is a good thing. not against civillians. i'm against unprovoked murder. a type of urban guerrila war. having to be declared i suppose. and it all depends on what you are fighting for. world domination = bad. freedom and democracy = good.

so any thoughts on any good terrorists? and when you would think good of it?

remember positive posts people :D

Since modern terrorism ultimately leads to death of innocents, my answer is "nothing".

The only examples of "terrorism" that had a positive effect I can think of are:
- Resistance against the Germans during WWII
- The French Revolution
- the Independance of the USA.

ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic

Never.

If they kill government officials and not civilians, then I can't do much to complain.

You must admit taht the good thing about 9/11 (not saying it was a good thing at all, but to look at a positive lesson) was that it really opened up the American eyes to the world. It made the world a smaller place.

Aside from that I think all terrorists should rot in hell and feel the full blooded wrath of the fallen legions. I hope they burn slow.

Bipper

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. thats what i feel anyway.

Terrorism is always beneficial to some.

Guerilla warfare =/= terrorism. Blowing up skyscrapers and trains is not a valid military strategy (Unless your plan is to have your entire network of operations severely disrupted.). Attacking military convoys, bases, and suchlike is. So strictly speaking, I wouldn't count the attack on the Pentagon entirely as terrorism, but the fact they killed some hundreds of innocent people in doing it kinda overrules the distinction there.

On the other hand, it set Iraq and Afghanistan free. And it ended up making Gaddafi much more ready to listen to us in the West. Hopefully other nations will follow suit. So, though I'd fully prefer those people never died, it has had a silver lining.

You know i am just wondering, theres rules in wars now? Anything goes in wars and whatever, innocents and killing them and ransoming them is just one strategy, doesnt matter what people think, if used right its a damn good strategy. All is fair in war (doesnt matter if you proclaim it or not too).
'
That and i feel it set afganisthan and iraq under American control rather than free...following the ideals that American's set up and for generations to come is not what i consider to be the free way...let them set it up however they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

You know i am just wondering, theres rules in wars now? Anything goes in wars and whatever, innocents and killing them and ransoming them is just one strategy, doesnt matter what people think, if used right its a damn good strategy. All is fair in war (doesnt matter if you proclaim it or not too).
'
That and i feel it set afganisthan and iraq under American control rather than free...following the ideals that American's set up and for generations to come is not what i consider to be the free way...let them set it up however they wish.

---

America isn't free, but it's damned closer than anyone else. Additionally, you might not have heard about a little thing called the Iraqi Constitution?

Isnt that set up by the Americans however..? I still feel that over there everything is a mock government that America is trying to instill slowly (as once the constitution is up everything will stem from that and from american ideals). That and i think Europe is way more free in some areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

Isnt that set up by the Americans however..? I still feel that over there everything is a mock government that America is trying to instill slowly (as once the constitution is up everything will stem from that and from american ideals). That and i think Europe is way more free in some areas.

---

Europe: Legally, it isn't. Socially, it can be.

And the whole problem with the Iraqi Constitution right now is that the various Iraqi groups can't agree on a few points of it. Why is this the case when the Americans are just barelling on in there and forcing them into this one set of laws with no room for debate?

Oh... right...

"You know i am just wondering, theres rules in wars now?" there is. it's called the rules of law. certain things you can and cannot do. you must declare war (been ignored for the last 40 years). you cannot attack civillians purposefully unless engaged in total war. you must wear uniforms on the battlefield. other treaties and the like help with this. chemical weapons, pows etc. most of the old rules of war were never legal or official and are mostly ignored or replaced with the treaties.

i think the formation of the new iraq while it has been handled correctly is doomed to failure. we did try this before. it led to sadamme being in power. (that's the last word on the constitution which is off topic)

Unlike the America thread which you are comparing this to for purposes of your warnings, Cloud, terrorism, by definition, is not a good concept, whereas America has both good and bad sides to it. A terrorist is a person who uses, as was posted in the definition early, violence, intimidation, and other tactics by which to achieve their ends. You might claim that the ends justify the means, in which case that is a "good" achievment of terrorism, but I tend to be of the opinion that the end does not justify the means in cases such as this.

What i mean is that the Americans Drafted it if i am correct, with their ideals and slant, which i feel should not be the case and should be made entirely by Iraq themselves.

the americans did not draft the constitution.

one must remember famous terrorists. gerry adams, nelson mandella, ghandi, the suffragettes, the french resistance, the mujahaden in afghanistan, the fighting in nepal.

if done correctly and performed like normal military action is dictated with the preservation of civillian life and destruction of military targets in an urban geurrilla environment is there a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

You might claim that the ends justify the means, in which case that is a "good" achievment of terrorism, but I tend to be of the opinion that the end does not justify the means in cases such as this.

---

That's basically my stance on that. No real good can come from terrorism, because by its very nature whatever ends come from it came about through violence and intimidation.

I mean, I understand that whomever can hate America, but do you really want to side with the Iraqi insurgents who behead our soldiers in Allah's name?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

if done correctly and performed like normal military action is dictated with the preservation of civillian life and destruction of military targets in an urban geurrilla environment is there a problem?

---

That's not terrorism.

blowing up military convoys, killing heads of state, lobbing a few grenades into barracks, mortaring military airstrips. killing a few more leaders and minister/senators. i would think that was terrorism.

Not necessarily. Sounds more like war to me. I mean, just look at the definition of terrorism. There is a difference between revolution and terrorism. Just because the other side might call it terrorism doesn't make it so.

so is there blowing up of military convoys and personell in iraq, war or terrorism?

I don't quite understand what you're saying here, but the underground Iraqi fighters against Americans aren't terrorists (currently), no.

okay just so we're cleared up for any other debate on such actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

one must remember famous terrorists. gerry adams, nelson mandella, ghandi, the suffragettes, the french resistance, the mujahaden in afghanistan, the fighting in nepal.

---

Ok, what the hell is wrong with you? Nelson Mandella, Ghandi are considered terrorists? From what I know, didn't both use NONVIOLENCE for their causes? Terrorists rely on terror, and some of the "terrorists" you listed can not be terrorists at all. You LOSE, GOOD DAY sir!

actually mandella was in (i think he led it) an organisation which had a quite nasty habit of blowing up women and children.

ghandhi was labeled a terrorist by the british government at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

one must remember famous terrorists. gerry adams, nelson mandella, ghandi, the suffragettes, the french resistance, the mujahaden in afghanistan, the fighting in nepal.

---

Just going to comment on two "famous terrorists" here.

First of all, Gerry Adams. What has he achieved of any worth other than helping to create a climate of mass fear in Northern Ireland and many hundreds, if not thousands of families mourning loved ones?

As for the Suffragettes, (this is in Britain, I don't know about America) in my opinion they actually delayed women getting the vote, as the government were likely to give it to them anyway, but they couldn't be seen as giving into these tactics as it would mean anyone who wanted anything would start smashing shop windows and blowing up empty property (The 1910's equivalent of terrorist attacks). It was the lobbying and persuading of MP by the non-violent supporters of the cause that enabled women to become franchised in Britain, not the violent supporters.

gerry adams helped bring about the good friday agreement and peace in northern ireland.

and the suffragettes gained the vote from the war.

Quote:

---

the americans did not draft the constitution.

---

Really? Well that changes everything rofl xD

Freedom in Northern Ireland? I'm confused, were the people there unwilling slaves or something?

If they hadn't used terrorist tactics I'm confident the vote would have been gained before the war.

Anyway, this is a thread about the positives of terrorism, so I'll say that terrorism can be an effective measure to bring about radical and important changes (Although those who are successful are called "Freedom fighters") in some circumstances, like with Gandhi or the French Resistance, but in some, like the suffragettes, it only serves to make a bad situation worse.

I don't see terrorism as a means to solve anything. Terrorist even though they may be fighting for what they believe is the best for their country do not represent the country at all. They have no allegiance to that country's military therefore they are not protected by the Geneva Convention. This is translated into... the moment you are taken as prisoner? Depending on who's captured you, it could be absolute hell. And there is noone to save you. Law is not on your side.

Terrorism doesn't utilize smart military planning either. Americans only attack mosques or hospitals when they have fluent information that supplies for enemies or arms are being stored there. Terrorist attack and us civilians or the public as shields to carry out their demands. Which eventually fails because with the no negotiation policy in tact. People die, and they do too.

I don't respect it and I've yet to see it successful.

the geneva convention while it does not apply to terrorists the human rights acts do.

the bigger the bomb the quieter the voice

I don't think killing people is good no matter how it happens, but I can see one thing that's almost good about terrorism.

-Governments needed a wakeup call; war isn't about two opposing factions standing in straight lines and shooting at each other. The American army was untrained in guerilla tactics when it went into Iraq, and they paid the price. When you're fighting for your life, you should be using any methods available to survive, and that is the future of warfare.

One other thing that really bugs me: Americans have gone ballistic over terrorism since 9/11, but terrorism has existed for hundreds of years in one form or another. We were just too ignorant to care about it till it hit us right in the face, and I don't think it will be possible to fully eradicate terrorism.

in fact they supported it with the IRA and NORAID. which cheekily enough was against their greatest ally.

There's a big difference between a terrorist and someone merely labeled a terrorist. Ghandi was not a terrorist, he used nonviolent methods. Terrorists use fear, intimidation, violence and atrocities. I support no organization that uses such tactics, and thus I feel terrorists are not to be supported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. thats what i feel anyway.

---

I'd agree with this. Terrorism does not arise spontaniously. It is, in my opinion, the acts of people working hard to make changes, albeit in a shocking and violent manner. I am appalled by it yes, but I wouldn't say it's mindless and useless when taken as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

There's a big difference between a terrorist and someone merely labeled a terrorist. Ghandi was not a terrorist, he used nonviolent methods. Terrorists use fear, intimidation, violence and atrocities. I support no organization that uses such tactics, and thus I feel terrorists are not to be supported.

---

Quoted for truth.

Everyone, we understand that sometimes governments label freedom fighters as terrorists when they are not. However, we're using the objective terms here, which states that a terrorist was not, say, Ghandi, no matter what the British government thought. We have to cleraly define the terms in order to assess the situation.

I mean, having defined them, I don't see how anyone can see any good in terrorism. What Cloud No. 9 - and all those who support him - is getting at is that there are those who were labeled as terrorists, but were, in actuality, fighting for the right cause - and not using terrorist actions. Ghandi, for example, was not a terrorist - in the real definition of the term.

And to all those who are going (and starting) to bring up the "War on Terror": we all know Mr. Bush is a smurfing idiot in that regard. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. thats what i feel anyway.

---

I'd agree with this. Terrorism does not arise spontaniously. It is, in my opinion, the acts of people working hard to make changes, albeit in a shocking and violent manner. I am appalled by it yes, but I wouldn't say it's mindless and useless when taken as a whole.

---

Bull$#!+. If you want to lift oppression, you target the ones oppressing you, not innocent civilians.

What you're misunderstanding, guys, is that "freedom fighters" are NOT terrorists.

A terrorist attacks civilian targets. Innocent human lives.

A freedom fighter is fighting for a military cause. Against military targets. They may use the same hit and run tactics, they might be called spies and sabotuers and a lot of other things, but armed resistance is simply armed resistance, whatever the armaments, whomever the armed opponent.

Terrorism is related to resistance in the same way that firing upon unnarmed civilians is related to standard military operations.

At the same time, I don't count "collateral damage" against the so-called terrorists. The suicide bombing of checkpoints is a valid military action, even if random strangers that are simply in the way get hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

What you're misunderstanding, guys, is that "freedom fighters" are NOT terrorists.

A terrorist attacks civilian targets. Innocent human lives.

A freedom fighter is fighting for a military cause. Against military targets. They may use the same hit and run tactics, they might be called spies and sabotuers and a lot of other things, but armed resistance is simply armed resistance, whatever the armaments, whomever the armed opponent.

Terrorism is related to resistance in the same way that firing upon unnarmed civilians is related to standard military operations.

At the same time, I don't count "collateral damage" against the so-called terrorists. The suicide bombing of checkpoints is a valid military action, even if random strangers that are simply in the way get hurt.

---

Well, they should try to wear some kind of uniform, since without one they are recognized only as spies by the Geneva Convention and are to be dealt with accordingly (ie: put up against a wall and shot). But otherwise, I fully agree with you.

the human rights act prevents the execution of spies (in fact all people). though the rules of war disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the human rights act prevents the execution of spies (in fact all people). though the rules of war disagree.

---

Funny, that doesn't stop terrorists...

And before you argue, I consider that killing civilians without giving them a chance to defend themselves to be execution.

It creates great social commentaries like Team America.

skyblade i'm not arguing for the murder of civillians (unless in a state of total war). i am arguing for urban guerrilla war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

skyblade i'm not arguing for the murder of civillians (unless in a state of total war). i am arguing for urban guerrilla war.

---

Urban guerrilla fighters are not what was under discussion. Terrorists were. The two are not the same.

depends what you see. are the iraqi insurgents who destory us convoys and murder servicement fighting a guerrilla war or being terrorists?

Actually, as they are not wearing uniforms, they are engaged in espionage, but I don't think that they're terrorists. Terrorists are the ones who target and kill innocent civilians.

guerrila warfare doesn't use uniforms anyway. makes the whole thing easier. so murdering us soldiers is perfectly fine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

guerrila warfare doesn't use uniforms anyway. makes the whole thing easier. so murdering us soldiers is perfectly fine?

---

Sure it does. Nothing about guerilla warfare specifies that uniforms are absent. It's all about hit and run tactics, surprise attacks, and not staying for a slugging match because you can't match the enemy's firepower.

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

---

You want to argue quotes? Fine.

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

Terrorists (most notably suicide bombers), can't win, so they can't be patriots. Happy?

nelson did.

lots of deaths have created change in history. william wallace for example. (i hate scottish history). sands in ireland changed alot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

nelson did.

lots of deaths have created change in history. william wallace for example. (i hate scottish history). sands in ireland changed alot.

---

Odd, no one called DMKA on the stupidity of his quote, but I get called on mine.

The fact is, neither was very valid. I was fighting an invalid quote with an invalid quote. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a patriot, but as that point had already been made, and DMKA ignored it, I decided to try a different tactic.

Hi guys, terrorism in my opinion brings about little positive effects if any at all. Thus I would vehemently oppose to it in no matter what the cause may be. But the real question isn't whether terrorism is good or bad, it's been pretty well established that it's the latter. Rather we should ask "Is terrorism justified?" Let's take a look at a few things.


Definition of terrorism

There's been a confusion so far on deliberating what qualifies as a terror organisation, is it freedom fighters? or simply people who kill civilians? The fact of the matter is that in many cases the line between fanatic terror and revolutionary terrorism is blurred. Americans and the Western world is more famaliar with the former, as they've seen in Columbine or Mc Veign and it is humanly to affiliate such domestic crime with the new threat they face... i.e. 9/11.

The distinguishing factor between these two cases is the fact that extremist islam is driven by an ideology, and is comparable to other organisations such as GAM in Indonesia, Checnyians in Russia and even enviornmental terrorsim. So what we must recognise is the distinction between the ideology and the action. Extremist Islam is NOT terrorism but the way JI and Al Qaeda profess this ideology is a terrorist act. The intifada in Palestine is an ideology, and Hammas suicide squad is the terrorist act. Thus i'd conclude that terrorism is the action of casuing a tangible harm(not necessarily loss of life, mind you) in an attempt to express a certain ideology.

JUSTIFICATION FOR TERRORISM

This concept by no means hold true in a general context. The evaluation of whether violence in the name of expression varies in the immediate climate in which such an act occurs. Let's move away from the political comforts of America, Europe or any 1st world nation for that matter, and try to understand situations in lesser developed nations. Countries like Zimbabwe, where Zanu-PF rules with an iron fist, or provinces like Aceh where violence is tolerated in the name of liberation. What we see in these places is a lack of avenue for citizens to express their disatisfation towards the government, where pillers of human dignity is ignored and human rights distorted as a Western philosophy unfit for the local citizens.

That's where modern terrorism is bred, and they have darn good reasons to practise it. Because tangible harm directly affects the economy of a nation and let's be realistic guys, foreign nations really don't give a rats ass about the oppression in certain countries unless it's of economic value to them. look at Burma and how the West has never really been bothered to bring about some kind of a change. But that's where terrorist attacks act as a beacon that something is seriously wrong and sends a wake up call not only to the government but also to the rest of the world. In a case of oppressed groups of people, terrorism is justified.

IS TERRORISM RIGHT THEN?

Personally i think not so but that's another story to tell another day.
Btw while i'm at it, it's called rules of engagment and must be practised in times of war. And regarding America's stand on terrorism i've got two things to point out.

"Operation Condor"

"Bay of Pigs Invasion"

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Odd, no one called DMKA on the stupidity of his quote, but I get called on mine.

---

Technically, didn't you pull him up?

Violence only begets more violence. Some solution.

Well, if we're in for more-or-less invalid quotes... how about "Liberty is a fickle mistress who must be courted upon the bodies of her suitors."

I don't know who said that one, but I like it. It contradicts the whole "violence begets violence" B.S. well enough, I think. Violence ends the moment one side gets the message and quits ****ing with the other side.

Oh, and terrorism certainly DOES work. Or did you not get the news that Israel is pulling out of Palistine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Odd, no one called DMKA on the stupidity of his quote, but I get called on mine.

---

That's because YOU did...funny of you to mention "stupidity". :D

And my quote isn't stupid...it's true. You just don't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skyblade

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

---

I think what sky was saying, is that he did thought your quote was in fact, not applicatable. He shot out one that met somthing different, but had as much berring to the subject as yours. I did see the irony. I mus say I do agree. A terrorist fights a war with terror, while a patriot has a wide range of weapons to use. They can have a war (The revolutionary WAR) or they can fly plains into buildings to scare citizens and spread panic accross the country.

There is deffinatley a difference between a patriot, and a terrorist. If you are gonna fight, use better weapons than terror.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skyblade

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

---

I think what sky was saying, is that he did thought your quote was in fact, not applicatable. He shot out one that met somthing different, but had as much berring to the subject as yours. I did see the irony. I mus say I do agree. A terrorist fights a war with terror, while a patriot has a wide range of weapons to use. They can have a war (The revolutionary WAR) or they can fly plains into buildings to scare citizens and spread panic accross the country.

There is deffinatley a difference between a patriot, and a terrorist. If you are gonna fight, use better weapons than terror.

Bipper

---

Yay! Thanks for explaining that Bipper. Here, have a cookie. :cookie:

The point is, DMKA, that your quote was invalid, incorrect, and idiotic (Whee! Alliteration!). As I tried to point out (and, thanks to Bipper, possibly succeeded in pointing out), is that quoting someone else doesn't make you correct. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a patriot, besides who's victorious. It is also possible to win a war by dying for your country, as long as you take enough of the enemy with you (of course, that goes into the second part of the quote, which I didn't bother to put in). The fact is, neither of our quotes were valid, yet they are both well known and have endured for a long time. That doesn't mean that they're always true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

The point is, DMKA, that your quote was invalid, incorrect, and idiotic (Whee! Alliteration!). As I tried to point out (and, thanks to Bipper, possibly succeeded in pointing out), is that quoting someone else doesn't make you correct. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a patriot, besides who's victorious. It is also possible to win a war by dying for your country, as long as you take enough of the enemy with you (of course, that goes into the second part of the quote, which I didn't bother to put in). The fact is, neither of our quotes were valid, yet they are both well known and have endured for a long time. That doesn't mean that they're always true.

---

And you just, once again, reinforced what I just said: my quote was true and you just didn't like it. :)

ugh, how did he do that? lol.

I don't aggree with that quote at all. A patriot can lose and still be called a patriot, a terrorist can win and still be called a terrorist.

Bipper :confused: :confused:

the victors always decide who was in the right. if the nazis won then the nazi's would have done the right thing, the jews were evil after all and the brits were misguided. and those ruskies deserved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Freedom in Northern Ireland? I'm confused, were the people there unwilling slaves or something?

If they hadn't used terrorist tactics I'm confident the vote would have been gained before the war.

Anyway, this is a thread about the positives of terrorism, so I'll say that terrorism can be an effective measure to bring about radical and important changes (Although those who are successful are called "Freedom fighters") in some circumstances, like with Gandhi or the French Resistance, but in some, like the suffragettes, it only serves to make a bad situation worse.

---

The explosion of the popularity & indeed, manpower of the Provisional IRA was only possible after the massacre on Bloody Sunday. The Provisionals were few & far between before then. It was only after the Catholic (and indeed some Protestant) Peaceful Civil Rights marches got banned and subsequently shot at by the British Army did a lot of Catholics take up arms.

Terrorism - the attack of civilians by a group or an un-governed organisation, for a certain political, personal, or any goal.

Guerilla - same as above, but against military targets only.

Now, terrorism is always bad. Guerilla, however, has a few other options. It can be used against an oppressive regime, to save\free people, or to banish an evil conqueror. However, for example, when drug lords fight against military targets to further their own trade, that is rotten.

sorry i meant peace when i said freedom about the irish thing (it was a long day).

Quote:

---

I don't aggree with that quote at all. A patriot can lose and still be called a patriot, a terrorist can win and still be called a terrorist.

---

Can be, yes, but it doesn't usually work that way. I think that might be what the quote was refering to. If the American revolution hadn't suceeded, Washington might be considered a terrorist. It's a matter of perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

---

I don't aggree with that quote at all. A patriot can lose and still be called a patriot, a terrorist can win and still be called a terrorist.

---

Can be, yes, but it doesn't usually work that way. I think that might be what the quote was refering to. If the American revolution hadn't suceeded, Washington might be considered a terrorist. It's a matter of perception.

---

No, Washington would have been considered a traitor. Not a terrorist.

I don't get what the big deal is. It's not a matter of perspective. A terrorist is someone who intentionally targets innocent civillians. One man's terrorist is not another man's freedom fighter.

Quote:

---

One man's terrorist is not another man's freedom fighter.

---

A terrorist can certainly fight for freedom - but once one uses terrorism for a certain goal, it negates and abolishes that goal, making it illegitimate, at least in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

---

Nothing stating that it has to target civilians. I will post more after I eat or in the morning.. but not feeling well now.. just wanted to get that out.

Before I take my leave there was one definition that said that it targeted civilians but it was the least common(if I read the system right) and it was from a source I don't recognize. Both Merriam-Webster and American Heritage(both sources I know) says it targets either state or public. Not neccesarily one or the other.

It does state that they use violence. Patriots don't always use violence. A petitioneer for an issue can be considered a patriot.

Ah hell here we go:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

pa·tri·ot Audio pronunciation of "patriot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.

One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

---

That is to vindicate my point from earlier that patriots are not terrorists if they dont win :)

Bipper

The word terrorist is just a derogatory word for a non-sponsered armed force. Whether a group iis classed a terrorist is down to the mind of the speaker, nothing more. It has little to do with who they kill as 'terrorist' was used by every government affected by this 'illegal army' no matter the cause or goals. Terrorism can of course be carried outr by official armies, infact that's where the phrase was first coined, during WWII by Bomber Harris describing his RAF Bomber Command. This has been forgotten lately.

One mans terrorist IS another's freedom fighter. If you fail to understand or believe that fact then you have never been in a situation that required your people to act in such a way. Usually poor peoples, with unequal rights to the opposition, with backed-up frustrations, with little resources but with a cause so important volunteers, unpaid, are willing to fight and die for the belief. Not all guerrilla warfare and illegal armies are the same & all must be treated on their own merits. You cannot Log them all as 'terorist' and vis a vis 'evil'. If only it were that simple.

Quote:

---

The word terrorist is just a derogatory word for a non-sponsered armed force. Whether a group iis classed a terrorist is down to the mind of the speaker, nothing more.

---

So they miss use the word. Simply put. In my opinion an apple might be an orange - but if i call it an orange - I am gonna get flamed. So why is it ok for our government entitie's to call a patriotic group, terrorists? Wouldn't that be classified as slander? Any members of that patriotic group whom are American citizens would prolly be able to sew.

I really don't like thinking of the American Resistance, or the French Resistance as bing terrorists. Even the immediate Iraqies fighting for thier country. They are not terrorist. Weather they win or loose.

The people whom are commiting suicide bombings on their own people, to stop them from getting food, and aid brought from America, are terroists.

One mans terrorist IS another's freedom fighter. :D

Bipper

Quote:

---

If only it were that simple.

---

Oh, but it is. We're talking semantics here - and terrorist has a very distinct meaning. It's not a buzz-word. When a freedom-fighter only kills military targets, he's a guerilla fighter. If he kills civilians, he's a terrorist. Simple as that.

prettymuch yeah.

But is 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' being used as a buzz word? Sure sept 11 was an act of terrorism, and rightly labeled one. However,George Bush uses september eleven to justify his 'War on Terrorism'. But Bush's war is not on terrorism. When did Saddam's Iraq commit terrorism(against America)? Ghandi may not have been a terrorist, but the fact that he was labelled one is siginficant. The modern notion of terrorism differs from the dictionary definition and this needs to be considered when discussing the pros and cons of 'terrorism'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Quote:

---

If only it were that simple.

---

Oh, but it is. We're talking semantics here - and terrorist has a very distinct meaning. It's not a buzz-word. When a freedom-fighter only kills military targets, he's a guerilla fighter. If he kills civilians, he's a terrorist. Simple as that.

---

I repeat, name me on armed force that hasn't killed innocents, either directly or indirectly. Don't use the 'they deliberately target civilians' card as many MANY of the world's powers have deliberately done that, masked or openly.

Like I say, it's only that simple if it's convenient for your viewpoint. It's a mass of grey if you're honest.

Just yesterday the 'legal' protestant ornagemen started riots all over Northern Ireland because they weren't allowed to march down Catholic streets. Let me put this into perspective for you. It's a Protestant March comemorating their defeat of King James' catholic Monarchy in 1690 and is openly anti-Catholic. It's like the KKK marching through Harlem or the PLO through Tel Aviv. It's reasons like this the IRA were formed. The roads are blocked, houses set alight, people shot & as a Catholic I'm pretty much housebound until it's over. Everyone bangs on & on about the IRA. No one mentions the beasts on the other side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Quote:

---

If only it were that simple.

---

Oh, but it is. We're talking semantics here - and terrorist has a very distinct meaning. It's not a buzz-word. When a freedom-fighter only kills military targets, he's a guerilla fighter. If he kills civilians, he's a terrorist. Simple as that.

---

I repeat, name me on armed force that hasn't killed innocents, either directly or indirectly. Don't use the 'they deliberately target civilians' card as many MANY of the world's powers have deliberately done that, masked or openly.

Like I say, it's only that simple if it's convenient for your viewpoint. It's a mass of grey if you're honest.

Just yesterday the 'legal' protestant ornagemen started riots all over Northern Ireland because they weren't allowed to march down Catholic streets. Let me put this into perspective for you. It's a Protestant March comemorating their defeat of King James' catholic Monarchy in 1690 and is openly anti-Catholic. It's like the KKK marching through Harlem or the PLO through Tel Aviv. It's reasons like this the IRA were formed. The roads are blocked, houses set alight, people shot & as a Catholic I'm pretty much housebound until it's over. Everyone bangs on & on about the IRA. No one mentions the beasts on the other side.

---

I'm not sure I can. I haven't bothered to keep track of every military action in history. Tell me though, how many military forces make it a policy that targeting innocents is the correct thing to do? Apart for some extreme total war situations, such as World War II, where everyone was supporting the war effort, which means that there were no civilians, militaries agree that targeting civilians is off-limits. If a single military commander does so, that is his actions, and those of the people serving under him, not the actions of the military force as a whole, and he will probably be brought up on charges of war crimes when his superiors find out. The military universally condemns the slaughter of innocents, while terrorists seem to think that it is the right thing to do.

And, yes, specifically targeting them as opposed to having some die with collateral damage does matter. You're saying that ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidently hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country? You must have the most screwed up set of morals since the terrorists themselves.

There were no civilians? What on earth kind of tripe is that? There are always non-belligerents, total war or not & Geneva protects them. That is the most preposterous thing I think I've heard here, and most dangerous. If there are no civilians why on earth did the Nuremberg Trials take place? Think before you type, it works better that way.

If you believe for one minute that generals and commanders do not condone the killing of innocents then you are very naive. It's been done here in Northern Ireland, in Vietnam, in British controlled interests throughout the world. Everywhere, and it is rarely brought to account.

Furthermore, don't accuse me of having screwed up morals you twisted little man, it isn't me saying there 'are no civilians' during total war. Many times, and I'm sure you will deny this in your own blinkered little way, places are obliterated to 'break the will to oppose' by deliberately targeting civilians, where do you think these lost & warped 'terrorists' got the idea? WWII was a hell I hope we never see again & civilians were nothing to either side. Both committed massive attacks directed solely to obliterate them in an effort to 'break the will' and both failed, bar the atomic attacks. Your blind faith that your country is always right is equal to the blind faith that these people have that they're going to paradise with 20 virgins.

To quote you mis-quoting me, no I’m not equating 'ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidentally hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country'. Those words never left my keyboard. I am, however, equating ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents to dropping bombs from a plane or launching missiles from 1,000 miles away onto a city full of thousands of innocents.

Don't put words into my mouth, nothing you say deserves that quote, you twisted little man, it isn't me saying there 'are no civilians' during total war. Many times, and I'm sure you will deny this in your own blinkered little way, places are obliterated to 'break the will to oppose' by deliberately targeting civilians, where do you think these lost & warped 'terrorists' got the idea? WWII was a hell I hope we never see again & civilians were nothing to either side. Both committed massive attacks directed solely to obliterate them in an effort to 'break the will' and both failed, bar the atomic attacks. Your blind faith that your country is always right is equal to the blind faith that these people have that they're going to paradise with 20 virgins.

And lastly, no I’m not equating 'ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidentally hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country'. Those words never left my keyboard. I am, however, equating ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents to dropping bombs from a plane or launching missiles from 1,000 miles away onto a city full of thousands of innocents.

Don't put words into my mouth; nothing you say deserves that quote.

First off I think you are getting a little too defensive here.

Second of all Sky is banned from Eotw for two weeks.

Thirdly, tes, there are times when we cannot protect civilians. Yes, military operations does not neccesarily mean that they will not, under any circumstances kill civilian. The saftey of our enemies civilians are taken into acount. This is way off track though. We are talking war, and not terrorism at this point. Terrorism basically strives by creating mass _terror_ among the people. (that's how they got thier name!)

Sure when a terrorist fights a war, he can be a patriot, that is not ruled out. They are two close words, but they cannot be used innerchangably in all circumstances.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

First off I think you are getting a little too defensive here.

Second of all Sky is banned from Eotw for two weeks.

Thirdly, tes, there are times when we cannot protect civilians. Yes, military operations does not neccesarily mean that they will not, under any circumstances kill civilian. The saftey of our enemies civilians are taken into acount. This is way off track though. We are talking war, and not terrorism at this point. Terrorism basically strives by creating mass _terror_ among the people. (that's how they got thier name!)

Sure when a terrorist fights a war, he can be a patriot, that is not ruled out. They are two close words, but they cannot be used innerchangably in all circumstances.

Bipper

---

OK, I apologise if my point seemed strong, but it was in response to one equally finger-pointing.

Terrorism may indeed be there to cause fear but that does not mean that you have to kill civilians. If someone got in and blew up fort knonx(if I spelled it right) where there were no civilians(or even if they druged and removed the guards) it would still make many people afraid. A lot of people few knonx as being very difficult to penetrate.

Terrorism is an illegal action in order to cause fear. That is all. No more, no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Guerilla force

n : an irregular armed force that fights by sabotage and harassment; often rural and organized in large groups [syn: guerrilla force]

---

The often rural makes it sound like it could easily be illegal.Check

The sabotage and harassment can lead to causing fear. Check

Thus in many situations a guerilla force can be a terrorist group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

freedom fighter
n.

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

---

This definately is illegal(at least by the sovergn government). However, it won't neccesarily cause fear, though there may be a very good chance that they will. In either the government or the populace.

So thus one mans freedom or guerrilla fighter can be another mans terrorist.

Quote:

---

I am, however, equating ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents to dropping bombs from a plane or launching missiles from 1,000 miles away onto a city full of thousands of innocents.

---

Yeah, exept that the later isn't usually condemned. Terrorism itself is a fact, but what gets called terrorism is pretty subjective.