ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
 ·RCN CABLE
| reply to Skippy25
Re: Where
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?? |
|
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. |
|
