Terrorists?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's a distinction without a difference - the American Revolution was a war for independence and it didn't matter one bit that the 2 sides in the conflict were a nation and a group of people fed up with that nation.

The American Revolution was not a war between states, but a civil war (struggle for power within one single country).

[Tattila the Hun]

Did the.. Minutemen of American independence war wear uniforms?

[Berzerker]

Umm...I think you're talking about the US civil war which wasn't really a civil war either, but an attempt by one group of people to secede from another just as the American Revolution - that is if a civil war is a struggle for power over the whole nation. I'd say the Vietnam war began with a civil war with the north seeking to control all of Vietnam. Neither the South or the American revolutionaries were trying to take control of the other side's territory...

[Harovan]

Both the American revolution and the civil war were civil wars by the definition of power struggle within one country. To be even more exact, they were wars of secession. In the first case the country was England, the part fighting for independence the overseas colonies and the secession succeeded, in the second case the country were already the US, the part fighting for independence the southern confederation and the secession failed.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Berzerker


That's a distinction without a difference - the American Revolution was a war for independence and it didn't matter one bit that the 2 sides in the conflict were a nation and a group of people fed up with that nation.

And if you read the whole thread you wouldn´t have missed my earlier posts about things like guerilla or other movements and such....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Umm...I think you're talking about the US civil war which wasn't really a civil war either,

You're not a history major, are you?

[Arrian]

My father still refers to the American Revolution as the "Second English Civil War."

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

as with everything (*cough* turkstein?) we have to go back to the greek roots of the word.

Tromokratis

Tromos= terror

Kratis (~Kratia)= authority/power.


"the one who holds authority through terror" could be the meaning.

a very accomodating term for many people/organizations/countries etc eh?

[Rogan Josh]

By a lot of these definitions, the British bombing of Dresden was a terrorist act.

[Bereta_Eder]

By a lot of definitions lots, if not all, organized military campaigns of today are terrorism.

[Sandman]

Part of the grey area is caused by the nature of urban guerilla warfare - a guerilla may start out attacking "legitimate" targets = the bes response for the counter insurgency is use informants, locals etc to gather intel. At some point the guerillas are going to kill informants - in many cases individuals who are not legitimate targets. I suppose one distinction would be between a group that limits its attacks on civilians to informants, and one that deliberately attacks civilians for larger strategic reasons, whether to stir fear, provoke reactions, or to rally the cause. I note that when Hamas and other Pal groups are cited as terrorists, it is generally for their killings of Israeli civilians, not for their killings of Palestinian informants.

For me, the definition of terrorism is the methods they use. The targets, whether civilian or military, legitimate or illegitimate, are irrelevant. Aerial bombardment is aerial bombardment, regardless of whether the target is a village or a tank column. So it is with terrorism: to me terrorism is covert operatives with bombs.

Hamas etc are terrorists because they use covert operatives with bombs, not because they target civilians.

I believe my definition of terrorism is ultimately more helpful than other definitions, which basically equate terrorism with war.

[our_man]

Hang on Sandman, if we were to go by your definition of terrorism that would mean a Hamas member that mowed down a crowd of innocent civilians with a machine gun instead of blowing them up with a bomb wouldn't be a terrorist?

[Sandman]

Well, ask yourself, why Hamas doesn't send suicide machine gunners? Machine guns are too difficult to hide and are not as instant as explosives, that's why. Terrorists use explosives because explosives are the best for their purposes.

Although, if they did, for some reason, use machine guns, it would still be terrorism, by virtue of them using covert operatives in the midst of the enemy population to deliver the weapons to the target.

[our_man]

OK, point taken. But what about special forces missions behind enemy lines to wipe out military leaders? Would that be terrorism in your book?

[Saint Marcus]

yes, what about black ops by, for instance, the CIA?