 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) So what's your definition of terrorism? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
I think the bigger question is what is YOURS? I believe most people in here can see the difference between the WTC attack and a nation trying to end a protracted war (with an enemy that had proved time and time again that it would suicide, use (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) You're probably right, Tom, and I can see the difference, too. I simply asked what your definition of terrorism is? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Some people would say that terrorism is the act of attacking civilians with the intention of reaching some kind of a (political) goal. During these discussions, the word terrorism is actually a problem. The problem is that the word is (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (FBI) I think this is good, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) What's yours? Did you like the one that Scott posted which he claimed was from the FBI? Where are you going with this repeating questions without being willing to answer them when they are posed back at you? (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) That's a good question. I don't know if I'd pin it down to a hard definition applied universally. It almost needs a case-by-case analysis. But I certainly don't see Hiroshima/Nagasaki as acts of terrorism, and DO see WTC as acts of terrorism. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) and a (...) and time (...) out at (...) minimizing the (...) applied (...) WTC as (...) Thanks, Tom. I agree that there's no single "catch-all" definition of terrorism. There's a bit of a discussion about it here (URL) quote from there: "The (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Hmm, I'm not sure this is a workable definition. I think this is the general purpose of most military action (just about no military action expects to eliminate much more than a fraction of the enemy forces, what it seeks to do is eliminate (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) a (...) in (...) Neither am I. I don't think the Terrorism Research Centre intend it to be either. As I said, I don't think there is a single "workable" definition of terrorism. (...) However most military action is directed at military (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Justifying Barbarism? (was: More on Palestine)
|
|
(...) This made me think a bit about the question: Can barbaric acts (whether terrorism or not) be justified if a. The intended overall result[1] is positive (eg. save lives, reduce poverty), and b. The actual overall result is positive, even if (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Which doesn't get you off the hook ;-) Here is my definition: "The enforcement of political goals through violence against unconcerned people is terrorism". Of course, with this definition, a violent attack targeting concerned people would (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
