Kaimani Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Doesn't change the fact! the fact that you think it's propaganda? no it does change that, nor the fact that others don't neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 the fact that you think it's propaganda? no it does change that, nor the fact that others don't neither. No, words mean things, they describe things... I didn't make that word or it's description up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 so there are 'terrorist' group who have good reason to be 'terrorists'? Of course. Terrorists are those that adopt the tactic of terrorising, a tactic that although it takes life, its main aim is psychological, the hope is that fear will lead to the realisation of their ideological objectives. Reliance on fear gives the advantage of less death and destruction than would otherwise be required. The primary reason for the adoption of the tactic is more often pragmatic than humanitarian however. 5 men with a rusty van and $300 worth of fertilizer have to use different tactics than an armoured divison with air support, intel support and hi tech weaponry and surveillance facilities, the definition of asymmetric warfare writ large. A soldier has billions of dollars of equipment and support. A soldier without the above facilities is a terrorist. The justification for the Terrorist depends of course on viewpoint and context. Soldiers kill people for Sovereign Governments that can advance their casus belli using private/state media and institutions and fora such as the UN Terrorists often lie less than the Sovereign Governments but lack the same propaganda facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Terrorists class civilians as legitimate targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Surely that is an arbitrary political judgement? The French Resistance were terrorists. Oddly I don't remember hearing too many tales of the French Resistance targeting civilians, blowing up civilians on buses or planting bombs on civilian aircraft with the intention of killing civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Terrorists class civilians as legitimate targets. Only terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Only terrorists? Yeah there are cases opposing to that ethos, but in general that's the difference. It's also the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists too! (Even though the terrorists would have you believe differently!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No, words mean things, they describe things... I didn't make that word or it's description up! yes, they do, but what they mean is sometimes fluid, and or, totally contrary to different people. 'terrorist' being one. and meaning changes all the time as you know. if you look up the meaning of 'sick' in the dictionary it tells you. if a young kid says something is 'sick' they mean something totally different. the same for many words. even for words that can mean 'the same' there can be subtle nuances. if i ask a group of Chinese people to show me a 'tall' person the person they show me might be shorter than someone a group of Scandinavians would show me. and their choice would be shorter than a group of NBA players would show me. in deed the 'tall' guy from the Chinese group might be positively short compared to the NBA guys pick. there are at least ten different kinds of 'X standard English' each with very different meanings for some words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Of course. Terrorists are those that adopt the tactic of terrorising, a tactic that although it takes life, its main aim is psychological, the hope is that fear will lead to the realisation of their ideological objectives. Reliance on fear gives the advantage of less death and destruction than would otherwise be required. The primary reason for the adoption of the tactic is more often pragmatic than humanitarian however. 5 men with a rusty van and $300 worth of fertilizer have to use different tactics than an armoured divison with air support, intel support and hi tech weaponry and surveillance facilities, the definition of asymmetric warfare writ large. A soldier has billions of dollars of equipment and support. A soldier without the above facilities is a terrorist. The justification for the Terrorist depends of course on viewpoint and context. Soldiers kill people for Sovereign Governments that can advance their casus belli using private/state media and institutions and fora such as the UN Terrorists often lie less than the Sovereign Governments but lack the same propaganda facilities. i agree with all you said, i only asked Norks coz she said the IRA had a reason to do why they did, implying, i felt, that they were somehow, a 'better' sort of terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Terrorists class civilians as legitimate targets. like the states at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the Germans in London, the English in Dresden, the Japanese at pearl harbor.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.