Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to ossito16
Re: Where
"Real terrorism does not exist."
I didn't even know they delivery internet services to under a rock. Which is where you must be living.
To answer your question, No. That is simply defending yourself any way possible.
From Dictionary.com:
Terrorism - 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.
Come out from under there and meet the world my friend. If you don't see terrorism in the world today then you are either: 1.) One of them 2.) Stupid 3.) Really do live under a rock. (Just for the record if you are #1, then #2 is a given) |
|
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
 ·RCN CABLE
| I do not live under a rock, I was making a sincere comment. So where does one draw the difference between revolutionaries (i.e. Boston Tea Party) and terrorist. Both are organized groups that have the intention of intimidating(to hopefully avoid bloodshed). Think about it, go to your local school bus company and check security there protecting busses. A real terrorist would want to inflict terror with no real goal. For example ,if several terrorist across USA planted bombs on school busses (luckliy we have enough prayer against this type of thing) to go off simultaneously, whether kids were on the busses or not, would cause complete chaos for all school districts. That is 'real' terrorism. Plenty of other scenarios that are basicaly unstoppable. |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25  :Terrorism - 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. Sounds like the RIAA.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to ossito16
These are of course my opinion and others may vary....
One is a rebellion against something being forced on them and was not a cowardly act of violence as terrorism so often is. In your example the rebellion of another tax. I would really classify this more as a riot since if memory serves me right it was a spur of the moment thing.
Terrorism would be more of an act of violence against someone that does not have the same beliefs which is why they are religious and political in nature. To continue with your above example we would have to say they were mad not at a tax hike, but because they were not muslim. And they didnt just throw the tea overboard then tar and feather them, but instead the cowards walked up to unarmed and innocent people that had nothing to do with it and slaughter them to invoke fear in them.
Revolutionaries would bring together and/or persuade others to unite in a common cause for the good of the people. However, if a revolutionary then lead them on an offensive violent attack against others that did not believe the same as they did, they are terrorist. With that in mind you could say Hitler was a revolutionary. But the instant he started killing others that did not believe the same he did he became a terrorist and was dealt with accordingly. |
|
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| I am going to say that maybe we are saying the same thing but its just definitions of words we are disagreeing on. I agree that anyone wanting to bring about change need not intentionally kill innocent people. But being innocent does not make one neutral. I guess now we have a problem with what it means to be innocent. If a kid is hanging around people he 'knows' to be involved with gangs and is in the car when they 'unexpectedly' do a driveby, is he innocent?? |
|
