Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 22:07:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
714 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > I come from the "never negotiate with terrorists" school of thought, and I
> > think there is a lot of merit in that approach. Terrorists need to be
> > apprehended and smacked down, not accomodated.
>
> Please define "terrorist".
Good question. I gave my definition in this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10146
It's about the second or third para down.
To your point about soldier==terrorist and vice versa, I agree that the
perception sometimes runs that way. But that's at least in part an effect of
a "history is written by the victors", wouldn't you agree?
I was going to cite the example of how US soldiers are instructed not to
harm civilians deliberately as proof that there is a difference between
soldiers and terrorists. But then I remembered Dresden. (My Lai(sp?) doesn't
count, it wasn't authorised)...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| Lar, I read your post about what a terrorist is: "I would tend to say it's a person or group using violence against bystanders as a way to make a political point or get a political outcome." By your definition, here's a list of "terrorists" for you: (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
