Thread: Sequel to "I never know what to say about such things"

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Well I don't think so but King George III thought they were for sure. I guess it is like former President Truman said in an interview when asked about the American civil war and Quantrill's Raiders, "The winners write the history". So if you were, like President Truman, from Independence, Missouri they were freedom fighters and if you were from Lawrence, Kansas they were terrorists.

Great job Jimmy! So is one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter? BTW I believe the shooter was simply a criminal unless they can find some other evidence that would prove it as a terrorist act.

BTW#2 The best thing to ever happen to Lawrence kansas was a kitchen match. The red legged murderers had it coming.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Great job Jimmy! So is one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter? BTW I believe the shooter was simply a criminal unless they can find some other evidence that would prove it as a terrorist act.

Of course! By definition...he is his own freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Great job Jimmy! So is one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter? BTW I believe the shooter was simply a criminal unless they can find some other evidence that would prove it as a terrorist act.

BTW#2 The best thing to ever happen to Lawrence kansas was a kitchen match. The red legged murderers had it coming.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

ter-uh-riz-uhm
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

I'm awake and slept off the drinks. This definition of terrorism is on par with what Ray gave us earlier in the thread, plus "for political purposes". I also believe nobody would find argument if we said "for political and religious purposes".

THIS is why abortion is not terrorism, JMS (at least by definition). There's no cause behind abortion, aside from the fact that somebody is trying to shirk the responsibility of raising a child (in non-rape, non-incest, etc cases). I wouldn't call that political (or religious).

As for the quote above (nun2sharp), I'd say that the act could be labeled terrorist (not just criminal) if we infer that the attacker was targeting the recruiters to inhibit the ability to train more soldiers for American campaigns. Based upon the fact that the attack was carried out in such a way and not just at random (i.e. a Columbine-esque shooting spree), I'm willing to presume there was political motive.

Of course, this is my opinion, but as logic would play out based upon the definition (since you asked), I think it holds up pretty well.

Time to make the donuts,

Ogie

I really wouldn't consider the founding fathers to be terrorists, they were more of a militia that engaged in guerrilla warfare, kind of like the viet cong. Of course, that type of warfare was frowned on at the time, so they may have fit the definition of 18th century terrorists. They didn't kill civilians and try to terrorize the populace, just make things so bothersome and expensive for the British that they would want to leave, so they don't really seem to fit the modern definition of terrorists.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

I really wouldn't consider the founding fathers to be terrorists, they were more of a militia that engaged in guerrilla warfare, kind of like the viet cong. Of course, that type of warfare was frowned on at the time, so they may have fit the definition of 18th century terrorists. They didn't kill civilians and try to terrorize the populace, just make things so bothersome and expensive for the British that they would want to leave, so they don't really seem to fit the modern definition of terrorists.

Well... Texas is always talking about wanting to secede. What if a group of texans started an armed militia and used guerilla warfare against US military personnel and attacking Federal buildings to make texas to bothersome and expensive for the USA.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Well... Texas is always talking about wanting to secede. What if a group of texans started an armed militia and used guerilla warfare against US military personnel and attacking Federal buildings to make texas to bothersome and expensive for the USA.

As long as they stuck to military targets and didn't pull Tim Mcvays then I really wouldn't call them terrorists. Rebels, maybe.

To further your example, say 70% of the Texas populace decided to join the fight and engaged in open warfare with the US military? Would they still be terrorists?

But I agree the line between terrorist, freedom fighter, and rebel is fairly thin (and in some cases interchangeable), prolly helped by the fact that "terrorist" sells more newspapers then an alternate word. My idea of a terrorist is pretty similar to the one given above, where they use fear as an instrument of political change, are usually willing to attack civilian targets, and don't really engage in traditional military actions. The founding fathers really didn't conform to this, in my opinion.

Let's forget the word "terrorist" and just describe who we are talking about by what they are doing

Originally Posted by Pete_S

As long as they stuck to military targets and didn't pull Tim Mcvays then I really wouldn't call them terrorists. Rebels, maybe.

To further your example, say 70% of the Texas populace decided to join the fight and engaged in open warfare with the US military? Would they still be terrorists?

But I agree the line between terrorist, freedom fighter, and rebel is fairly thin (and in some cases interchangeable), prolly helped by the fact that "terrorist" sells more newspapers then an alternate word. My idea of a terrorist is pretty similar to the one given above, where they use fear as an instrument of political change, are usually willing to attack civilian targets, and don't really engage in traditional military actions. The founding fathers really didn't conform to this, in my opinion.

I have to agree with that. A case in point being the 1916 uprising in Dublin. The IRB fought the British army. Years after the Irish Free State fell apart and Michael Collins was assassinated the IRA expanded to indiscriminate bombing and such. Still there are many who would defend what they did and call them freedom fighters... I guess.