Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:42:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
319 times
|
| |
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> writes:
> So what's your definition of terrorism?
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 frequently used in the meaning "acts
of war which we do not like". Hence, people tend to call the guys
they don't agree with terrorist, while the other guys get called
freedom fighters or something to that effect.
For example, during the Soviet invasion to Afghanistan, the CIA
supported the Mujahedin guerilla in their struggle against the
invasion force. I haven't checked any historical references, but they
were probably called freedom fighters, fighting against the outside
occupational force. Some ex key members of the Mujahedin guerilla are
now called terrorists because we don't lik'em anymore. They're still
the same guys, though.
Take another example, the Norwegian resistance during the nazi WWII
occupation were called terrorists by the occupational force. They did
perform acts of terrorism, too, by the definition above. A well known
example is a ferry with civilians and "heavy water", a key ingredient
in the nazi struggle to create an atomic bomb, was sunk will lots of
casualties. Still, they were called freedom fighters by the
Norwegians, and they did receive substantial support from the Allies.
A problem is that nowadays, some more or less democratic countries
call their opposition terrorists. With the anti terrorism resolution
recently out from the UN, they can strike harder at their opposition.
Fredrik
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 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
|
|
|
|
