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

Terrorism v Revolutionary?

It seems to me that a terrorist is a revolutionary who's side has not prevailed. History, written by the victors will fix the labels.

If you don't think the British Loyalist in the 1760's and 1770's didn't view the Colonial Revolutionaries as terrorists, you're mistaken. Today, we call them Patriots. The Colonists sometimes fought dirty, from behind rocks, walls and trees. The British thought them vulgar for avoiding a face off accros a field.

Just so, we look upon the acts of these modern day terrorists with distain, but we must realize, they are using the weapons at hand to fight for their cause. They are wrong, and they wish us dead simply because we are not them.

They view themselves as dedicated visionaries in a Holy Jihad, and will continue the fight until they can fight no more. We, on the other hand, muddle our thinking by trying to "understand." We try to persue the mistaken belief that if we "communicate" and seek "common ground" the killing will stop. It will not. The killing will not stop until they can kill no more.

Doyle's father wrote a pretty good short article on terrorism; however, I am not sure it is reasonable to group the isolated act of idiots (Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, etc.) with the systematic terrorism fostered by Muslim extremists. Nor does it seem reasonable to call acts motivated by prejudice as terrorism, unless they are coordinated and organized with a specific long term objective.

 

Like it or not, I think the definition is still valid.

The Allied fire bombing of Dresden is another example. Probably the V2 bombing of London fits as well, since the Germans knew so many were landing in civilian areas. I'm sure there are many more examples from many other wars.

Are some acts of terrorism justified? Absolutely.

 

Bromberg wrote: "If you don't think the British Loyalist in the 1760's and 1770's didn't view the Colonial Revolutionaries as terrorists, you're mistaken. Today, we call them Patriots. The Colonists sometimes fought dirty, from behind rocks, walls and trees. The British thought them vulgar for avoiding a face off accros a field. "

Doyle replies: guerilla warfore does not equal terrorism. Indeed, guerilla warfare is a legitimate military tactic, whereas terrorism is not. In essence, and at its worst, terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians in order to literally terrify the population into subjugation to the will of the terrorist. I can't imagine that Robert means what he says: "Are some acts of terrorism justified? Absolutely." "justification" allows Osama to fly airliners into the WTC. Anyone can justify anything if terrorism can be justified.


Bromberg wrote: Doyle's father wrote a pretty good short article on terrorism; however, I am not sure it is reasonable to group the isolated act of idiots (Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, etc.) with the systematic terrorism fostered by Muslim extremists. Nor does it seem reasonable to call acts motivated by prejudice as terrorism, unless they are coordinated and organized with a specific long term objective.

Doyle replies: Terroism is defined by its scope or scale, but rather by its intent and the flow of blood from innocnent bodies. A terrorist can act alone, as part of a small group, or can be the head of state of a large governemnt. neither is terrorism limited to only those who act w/o prejudice. I think it is safe to say that Osama and his "folks" carry a heavy prejudice agianst Americans and the West in general. And I don't hink tha it can be argued that American terrorists do not intend to terrorize.

In sum, terrorism is a tactic or statagy that can be practiced on any scale by any size organization or by an individual.

Rodger

 

Terrorist v Legitimate Tactics

Roger;

I think you and I are singing different parts, but from the same page. Terroism is largely semantic, and the way the terms will be used in the future about current events will be determined by the ultimate victor. Were the colonists terrorists? I guess that depended on who's property was destroyed or taken in the process of the war. It is difficult to swallow that some of heros of our history may not have been viewed as we view them today.

I am not sure some of the idiots who have bombed government buildings, abortion clinics, etc. were thinking along the same lines as say, the PLO, or the IRA. They target a government building to "stop the government" or an abortion clinic to "stop the abortions," but rarely will they bomb a bus stop, then send a letter profering a political agenda.

One thing is certain, terror is a tactic that has certainly come of age. With the ability to communicate instantly anywhere in the world, and the mobility we all enjoy, there is no doubt it will continue to be used. Through this tactic, force can be leveraged in the extreme.

You are correct in your assertion that guerilla warfare does not equal terrorism; however much of what we call terrorism today could be reconstrued to be a form of guerilla warfare should the terroists prevail.

 

Rodger, IMO history is the only thing that can justify any particular instance of terrorism. And those would be far and few between.

As for the WTC, even with the benefit of 50 or 100 years of perspective I don't think what happened will be judged any differently than it is now.