1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What's a 'Terrorist'? What's a 'Revolutionary'?

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Due North, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    not really... you'd think after we got our asses kick by a bunch of little runts in viet nam the military might have learned something.. seems the same thing is going on in Iraq
     
  2. Dave K

    Dave K DaveK über alles!

    Oh great, here comes the debate on The Nam. This will be a long drawn out battle that will seem to have to end in sight. :D
     
  3. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    I think that you are right and that the inapropriate use of the term "terrorist" has detracted from its meaning.

    Rodger
     
  4. RoadRacerX

    RoadRacerX Jesus Freak

    Yeah right. Whatever. Let's stop pursuing and incarcerating those who wish to kill Americans, because they are doing it to further their cause. :rolleyes:

    Due North, to coin a Wilson, "You are a SCHLEPROCK"!!! :p
     
  5. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    Jay, I don't think that was his point, buts he's Canadian so wtf do I know.:D
     
  6. SOFG

    SOFG Well-Known Member

    Seams to me Terrorists may be of a political or religeous belief but usually aren't connect with a government or a group that wants to change governments.

    And they hide by not being affiliated with a scpecfic country.

    Cowards!
     
  7. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    SOFG, but governments have the capacity to conduct terrorism on a broader scale than a group of nuts with bombs. But, i guess that governments are just a bunch of nuts, too.:D ;)

    Rodger
     
  8. SOFG

    SOFG Well-Known Member

    Ya, your point!?
     
  9. SOFG

    SOFG Well-Known Member

    Governments (civilized) are usually protecting themselves or trying to expand their territory. Unless there is a nut in charge. Then we should "fix" it.
     
  10. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    You said "Terrorists may be of a political or religeous belief but usually aren't connect with a government or a group that wants to change governments." I disagreed: i believe government terrorism has killed millions more than any flash in the pan group like Al Queda. Stalin is a good example of this for instance. But i don't think there is any doubt that Al Queda is terrorist.
     
  11. Due North

    Due North Source of Insanity

    Thanks Jay. You're invaluable contribution to the discussion is appreciated. :D
     
  12. MarkB

    MarkB All's well that ends well

    "Sir. Any man that will enter the field of battle from behind a tree is not a man at all. No Sir, he is a Cad, thats what he is. Furthermore, I say that any man that does not stride gleefully across the battlefield in a suit of red, and a glint in his eye, is not only a Cad, but also a Bounder of despicable proportions. For I tell you this, there is nothing more pleasing to the eye, nor stirring to the soul, than to see a formation of proud young redcoats marching gayly toward the enemy with a smile on their face and a song in their hearts. Hurrah."

    .....Yeah, and we'd still be ruling the world if it wasn't for you snooping kids. :mad:
     
  13. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    I know Bruce's kidding. But I think his joke reflects the thinking of the majority. So, was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a revolutionary?
    :)
     
  14. Joss

    Joss F3 Dabbler

    Terrorism is a tactic or strategy used in fighting a war. The purpose is to sap the enemy's will to continue as opposed to destroying his forces or his capacity to fight. Terrorism can be used at any level of warfare. The civilian bombings in WWII were considered "terror bombing". Terrorism can be compared to other strategies.

    Revolutionary merely describes someone's in the context of the existing government. Nothing says the rebel must automatically uses terrorism. If the revolution is fought military to military there is nothing necessarily terroistic about it.

    War between nation is not revolution, but terror can be used.

    Wars of rebellion can skip the use of terrorist tactics.
     
  15. Robert

    Robert Flies all green 'n buzzin

    Oh good lordy this is simple.

    Terrorism is violence directed at innocent people by an organized group with a political purpose.

    If its directed at military targets or soldiers, with the intent of overthrowing and replacing the government, then they're revolutionaries.

    If it's just to overthrow the government, then they're anarchists.

    The rest are common criminals or nutters.

    Those definitions aren't self exclusive. Mcveigh was a terrorist. He may not have been insane but I think he was also severely deluded.
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Flies all green 'n buzzin

    Edit: If its directed at military targets or soldiers in another country, then its just war.
     
  17. RoadRacerX

    RoadRacerX Jesus Freak

    Careful now Robert. We've trod this path before. If that's the case, the US planes that dropped the A-bombs on Japan were terrorists. :rolleyes:
     
  18. RoadRacerX

    RoadRacerX Jesus Freak

    Sorry Due. I just get the feeling that you'd hate the US no matter what position we take. Lighten up and enjoy the protection your big brother gives you. I love you crazy Canucks! :cool:
     
  19. SpEd

    SpEd poor impulse control

    Here is one for you all that I have been wrestling with. During the formation of Israel there were Jews that commited terrorist acts. Some of these revolutionaries were doing the same things that the Palestinians are now doing. They set off bombs, they burned business, they killed innocent people. I watched a really extensive documentary on the Discovery channel on this. How is it different when the winners do it? Why is it that history is forgotten so quickly? I am always amused by the people that say "we will never forget", or my favorite "never again". They are both bullshit statements and proof that history is a lie. History is written by the winners, and the loser usually ends up speaking the winners language. I find that to be the ultimate insult against a culture. "well we came and kicked your ass so now you must learn our native tounge". If you want some proof that history is a lie and easily forgotten just look to Rwanda, Bosnia, etc... The only difference between what happened there and what happened in Nazi Europe is that we new better this time around. The first time the American intelligence community didn't believe the reports so we didn't act. This time around we have satellite pictures and a political excuse. If we arent't going to do anything about it, fine. Just don't walk around waving a flag and talking about how you won't ever forget and it will never happen again.

    About the Israel/Palestinian thing, I am neither for or against either side in this one. I can sympathize with the plight of both, if not with the means that they are taking. I am merely fascinated by what is happening over there right now. And ddep down inside I have a problem with countries that are founded on the basis of a mass shared religion. And before you start, don't give me that crap about how the US was founded. They didn't come here to found a new country, they got kicked out of England for being too extreme. Go and read Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the US"
     
  20. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    what's this got to do with unions?

    oops sorry, wrong thread. :D
     

Share This Page