what's GOOD about terrorism?(for once)

[bipper]

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

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Cuchulainn]

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.

[War Angel]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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

[DarkLadyNyara]

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.

[Skyblade]

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.

[DocFrance]

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.

[War Angel]

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.

[ShunNakamura]

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.

[bipper]

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:

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

[Cuchulainn]

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.

[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.

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.

Bipper

[War Angel]

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.

[Teek]

prettymuch yeah.