I'll grant you that there is a distinction between the Cole bombers and, say, your run-of-the-mill suicide bomber.
Can you explain to me how the Minutemen of the American Revolution are like terrorists?
No, I didn't say it was common knowledge the founding fathers were terrorists.
Tell me, in your college level history classes did your professors ever comment on your reading comprehension? Perhaps you should go back and reread my statement and rethink your post. When you are able to read my post properly I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Until then I'm not sure what the point of me addressing questions you have about statements I never made were.
Darrin,The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence?
You and GGA are really helping me make my case.
Come on, be honest here. The comparison he made had nothing to do with freedom fighters, but when asked if you knew that those in the UK considered our patriots terrorists, your retort was that they didn't go to Britain to kill citizens. Then MIG said that by this definition that the USS cole bombers wouldn't be terrorists. He wasn't saying that they werent, or that they were freedom fighters. You insinuated that the only way for someone to be considered a terrorist they would have to travel to the homeland, and kill citizens. This isn't the case, one can also attack that homeland's interests. Additionally, the founding fathers did go to Britain and cause havoc. America was a British colony (i.e. british empire, i.e Britain), so they didn't have to go far. Am I glad they did it, damn straight, but you are glossing a little too much. Now this may be in reaction to the video which I haven't seen. If you disagree with the video, cool, but if you cant see that sometimes, someone you disagree with can say something that is true, then you begin at a disadvantage.
I know this happens on both sides, shoot, I may have done it too, though I make a concious effort not to, so I don't care about responses that say " that is the way the right always is, with their blinders on" because that usually comes from someone who, personality-wise, and debate-wise is DarrinS equal in all but side of the political spectrum.
Edited because I messed up a name.
Last edited by Drachen; 05-20-2010 at 11:43 AM.
+1
Don't get me started on the current state of college reading comprehension and writing proficiency.
Since when does motivation have anything to do with the definition of terrorism??The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence?
You and GGA are really helping me make my case.
Terrorism is about methods not motivation. If Timothy McVay was trying to save his family by planting a bomb in Oklahoma would that make him any less of a terrorist??
Motivation has nothing to do with it. Its about using tactics with the purpose of creating terror.
I'm not sure what a run of the mill suicide bomber is. You still haven't answered the initial question, however. Are they terrorists or not? What is your definition of a terrorist?
Lets be clear, I do not think the American revolutionaries were terrorists. To me a terrorist is someone who goes after civilians. I do however, see the parallel in using tactics considered unfair or dishonorable by the opposition.Can you explain to me how the Minutemen of the American Revolution are like terrorists?
Is there any doubt that if the Boston Tea Party occurred today it would be labeled an act of terrorism? (something I find all too ironic considering the what Tea Party stands for today)
I work at a college, makes me want to cry.
Since when does motivation have anything to do with the definition of terrorism??
Terrorism is about methods not motivation. If Timothy McVay was trying to save his family by planting a bomb in Oklahoma would that make him any less of a terrorist??
Motivation has nothing to do with it. Its about using tactics with the purpose of creating terror.
Motivation has nothing to do with it?? Are you high?
Terrorism is about tactics not ideology. Are you trying to insinuate that there was a motivation Timothy McVeigh could posses and justifiably carry out his acts?
I agree that a terrorist is one who targets civilians, which is why I would disagree with the girl in the video.
If it happened today, it would be considered a man-made disaster.
It doesn't. Unless you think the only qualification for being a terrorist involves hating the US and bombing American citizens. Terrorism is not code for "Anyone that hates America".
WTF?
So, there's no ideology that motivates Al Qaeda?
but they were/are both considered terrorists
I don't know, are they liberals or conservatives?
It doesn't. Unless you think the only qualification for being a terrorist involves hating the US and bombing American citizens. Terrorism is not code for "Anyone that hates America".
I think terrorism involves both ideology and tactics.
Terrorism is a tactic. The motivation can be political, spiritual or organic (i.e., insanity). It's not defined by the ends but the means. That's probably what MaNuMaNiAc meant.
Ofcourse they have an ideology, but that's NOT what defines them as terrorist, and THEY are NOT the only terrorist organization in the world. I don't understand how that's difficult to understand.
Do you think there is a difference between El Al Flight 1862 and the flights hijacked on 9/11?
What is that difference? (wait for it)
now pendantism may be the real culprit of our times. and although associated with scholars, that certainly also seems to be the forte of the average 3rd grader so, in that regard, you have certainly mastered that skill. feel free to crown yourself the spell checker king of the forum. it may not be substantive but at least it's something.
You make my head hurt man. The defining characteristic of what makes a terrorist a terrorist is their tactics of choice, not their ideology. No one said terrorists don't have ideologies.
Do you think there is a difference between El Al Flight 1862 and the flights hijacked on 9/11?
What is that difference? (wait for it)
They were in England and if they killed any people before America gained Independence, they killed British citizens.
I wish I had seen this thread earlier.
their ideology motivates them to commit terrorist acts, their ideology isn't in and of itself terrorism. If their ideology motivated them to try to organize the muslim world to boycott all American interests, this shouldn't be considered terrorism. It is the ACTS which are define terrorists.
Strangely enough, I can't find a definition of terrorism that doesn't include:
motivation, goals, purpose, etc.
United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code le 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to le 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this le; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this le.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
