Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Just what IS terrorism?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just what IS terrorism?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0

Normal Thread Display
Message 84 of 112 (162653)
11-23-2004 12:30 PM 		Reply to: Message 8 by berberry
11-13-2004 7:42 PM

Re: Let's see if we can assign certain acts to one column or another.
berberry writes:
​
As far as I'm concerned, if it's civilians and not military units that are targeted, then it's terrorism.
Based on this definition, much of modern war since 1914 has included acts of terrorism. I tend to think that terrorism should be defined as actions against civilians at a fair distance from the actual battlefield, if the idea of battlefield can even be defined. For a terrorist, any site anywhere involving anyone of "them" is fair game.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by berberry, posted 11-13-2004 7:42 PM berberry has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 5:22 AM Phat has replied
  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0

Normal Thread Display
Message 88 of 112 (162897)
11-24-2004 10:09 AM 		Reply to: Message 86 by contracycle
11-24-2004 5:22 AM

Re: Let's see if we can assign certain acts to one column or another.
r Yeah I remember a few years ago when Reagan was president. He supported one side in the Nicaraguan conflicts. As I recall, one side was sandanistas and the other side was contras. Reagan called one side terrorists and the other side "freedom fighters". I suppose that as long as a country is defending Western Capitalist interests they are not "terrorizing" anyone no matter what they do..at least, according to Reagan.
Quetzal writes:
​
The entire point of using intent as a basis for judgement is designed to remove the ambiguity and force "legitimate" states to confront their own uses of terror by making a clear distinction.
So then..it seems as if a terrorist is by definition against a democratic government. Right or Wrong?
​
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 11-24-2004 10:13 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 5:22 AM contracycle has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Quetzal, posted 11-24-2004 10:27 AM Phat has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024