Darius11 12 #1 June 10, 2008 Quote1a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2.a person who terrorizes or frightens others. 3.(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror. 4.an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. –adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics. That’s what the dictionary defines it as. Here is my concern we tend to say so and so is a terrorist or this person supports terrorism mainly because we hear them described that way. So for the purpose of not being another sheep (we have enough off those) what does it mean when we say terrorist? What I find confusing is when you try to define it for exp. as People who kill civilians? People who target civilians? People who brake international law? It seems a lot of the people pointing the finger have more blood on their hands then the people they are pointing too. So with out mentioning actual terrorist organization or people that you think are terrorist. What defines someone as a terrorist to you?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 June 10, 2008 One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Boston Tea Party for instance.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #3 June 10, 2008 QuoteOne man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Boston Tea Party for instance. I agree so is it just a matter perspective?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 June 10, 2008 QuoteI agree so is it just a matter perspective? Yes.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 June 10, 2008 I'm not sure folks living under authoritarian Muslim rule would use the phrase "freedom" to describe Mulsim terrorists killing civilians to enforce a 14th century way of life on them.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #6 June 10, 2008 Wow- You know I want to disagree with you on this so bad. I really do but I can’t which makes it even more difficult to understand right and wrong. I guess we are all truly selfish beings. I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #7 June 10, 2008 QuoteI'm not sure folks living under authoritarian Muslim rule would use the phrase "freedom" to describe Mulsim terrorists killing civilians to enforce a 14th century way of life on them. So is a terrorist "someone who uses force and fear to push his/her beliefs and viwes on others"? Hey that sounds good.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #8 June 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteOne man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Boston Tea Party for instance. I agree so is it just a matter perspective? And time....the IRA at one time was considered a freedom fighting group. Many years later it became a terrorist group. Sometimes the best intentions get sidetracked and a dream get blurry. But for the most part, I agree with Quade._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #9 June 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteI agree so is it just a matter perspective? Yes. I agree that it's very much a matter of perspective but I also think that weaponry and financing play a role in the perception. Tank = Army IED = Terrorist Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 June 10, 2008 QuoteI'm not sure folks living under authoritarian Muslim rule would use the phrase "freedom" to describe Mulsim terrorists killing civilians to enforce a 14th century way of life on them. I am. This is what a lot of folks here in the US miss; to them -we- are the terrorists who would deny them their freedom to practice a religion and culture that has existed for centuries before our own. When President Bush says he wants to bring "freedom" and democracy to the middle east, he's forgetting one really important thing, for the most part they don't want "our" style of either freedom or democracy. It really is all in one's point of view.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #11 June 10, 2008 Quote So is a terrorist "someone who uses force and fear to push his/her beliefs and viwes on others"? Sounds pretty good, but I think an additional context of "changing current society" needs to be added, somehow.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 June 10, 2008 Quote Wow- You know I want to disagree with you on this so bad. I really do but I can’t which makes it even more difficult to understand right and wrong. I guess we are all truly selfish beings. No. Understand that virtually everyone believes that their own actions and motivations are "right". Some not only feel that they are "right" but have concluded that they are so right that they draw their inspiration from God himself and that God is on their side so not only are they right, they actually have been commanded by God to do whatever they are doing. If you want to ascribe this behavior to either side of the current issue in Iraq, go right ahead.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #13 June 10, 2008 Why would the Boston Tea party be a terrorist act? I guess I would say that terrorists deliberately target soft (civilian) targets. unfortunately that means that many times in WWII, particularly the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the USA is guilty of massive terrorist attacks. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 June 10, 2008 QuoteWhy would the Boston Tea party be a terrorist act? I guess I would say that terrorists deliberately target soft (civilian) targets. Which is exactly what the TEA was. It wasn't military "weapons grade" tea; it was tea that had been sent over by merchants and sold to the colonists for a delightfully refreshing beverage. True it was going to be taxed by good King George and that's what got the participants all huffy, but put it into perspective of today, it would be like people destroying a gas station because they didn't like the fuel tax. I'm pretty certain somebody in our current government would call that an act of terrorism and they'd be right. Quote unfortunately that means that many times in WWII, particularly the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the USA is guilty of massive terrorist attacks. Or the fire bombings of Dresden.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #15 June 10, 2008 QuoteWhy would the Boston Tea party be a terrorist act? Historically the line between has been one of popular support, but 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong. Fighting to preserve your rights is a pretty basic instinct, and when it's done against odds it can even be admirable. But a line is crossed when you no longer fight because you think you know what's best for you, and start thinking you know what's best for others. There's been a lot of groups swinging to and fro over that line in the past few decades in the middle east. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and you can cause, and get yourself into, a lot of trouble by trying to juggle assistance to groups based on which side of the line they happen to reside on today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #16 June 10, 2008 Quote Historically the line between has been one of popular support, Good observation. Probably need to throw in "...and the people had no way to vote others out of office", or something like that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #17 June 10, 2008 QuoteQuote So is a terrorist "someone who uses force and fear to push his/her beliefs and viwes on others"? Sounds pretty good, but I think an additional context of "changing current society" needs to be added, somehow. So, like a "shock and awe" campaign intended to reshape a culture into one more closely resembling our own? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 June 10, 2008 the 'shock & awe" campaign is usually directed against armed forces, so it wouldn't be terrorism. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #19 June 10, 2008 Quotethe 'shock & awe" campaign is usually directed against armed forces, so it wouldn't be terrorism. In the definition I was responding to, the gist was "someone who uses force and fear to push his/her beliefs and viwes on others...to change current society". There was no exemption for attacking armed forces. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #20 June 10, 2008 Have you read the whole thread?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 June 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure folks living under authoritarian Muslim rule would use the phrase "freedom" to describe Mulsim terrorists killing civilians to enforce a 14th century way of life on them. I am. This is what a lot of folks here in the US miss; to them -we- are the terrorists who would deny them their freedom to practice a religion and culture that has existed for centuries before our own. When President Bush says he wants to bring "freedom" and democracy to the middle east, he's forgetting one really important thing, for the most part they don't want "our" style of either freedom or democracy. It really is all in one's point of view. Wow... I guess we REALLY fooled all those Iraqis that voted in their own government, huh.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #22 June 10, 2008 QuoteWow... I guess we REALLY fooled all those Iraqis that voted in their own government, huh. Dunno if you noticed, but there's currently a civil war going on about that and even the guys we wanted to be elected because they'd have a system vaguely more like ours . . . weren't.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 June 10, 2008 Quoteunfortunately that means that many times in WWII, particularly the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the USA is guilty of massive terrorist attacks. Nuking Japan was not a terrorist act. It was just another bombing in a long war. The US will never fall under the category of terrorists, just as the Red Army (USSR or China) do not. Imperial thugs, maybe, terrorists, no. Terrorists (or Freedom Fighters, if they're on your side) are not nations, nor do they represent nations. They also do not engage in a straight up fight, usually by their nature as underdogs. Those two elements are as close to a definition as you'll get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 June 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteWow... I guess we REALLY fooled all those Iraqis that voted in their own government, huh. Dunno if you noticed, but there's currently a civil war going on about that and even the guys we wanted to be elected because they'd have a system vaguely more like ours . . . weren't. Gee, I *hadn't* noticed, thanks for the reminder! I guess I was just in Saudi from 01 to 03 because I liked the sandstorms. The constitution that they've written, all the people that voted (both for AND against it) - nope, the Iraqi people are obviously not interested in democracy at all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #25 June 10, 2008 >Terrorists (or Freedom Fighters, if they're on your side) are not nations, >nor do they represent nations. They also do not engage in a straight up >fight, usually by their nature as underdogs. Those two elements are as >close to a definition as you'll get. You've just defined George Washington to a T, while he was fighting the British. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
