Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:25:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1802 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> writes:
>
> > This cannot be reduced to yes/no. I’m sure the Germans thought the
> > French Resistance were terrorists. Was William Wallace a terrorist?
> > Similarly, when does internal-terrorism end and a state of
> > civil-war begin? I’m not sure.
>
>
> I think this is a very important point, which I would like to see more
> focus on. It is a sad fact that occupied people tend to use violent
> and immoral action against the occupiying force. It should also be
> noted that such actions, which can be often be described as terrorism,
> are commonly supported by the occupied people. The history of
> occupied Europe througout WWII should have teached us this.
I use the term "terrorism" as the specific, random targeting of civilians for
the purpose of terrorizing them. Notice I don't even mention intent other than
to terrorize. There is no rationality behind terrorism beyond terrorizing. It
is irrational.
>
>
> An example from occupied Norway during WWII: The most famous act of
> resistance was the sinking of the ferry "Hydro" on February 20th,
> 1944. The ferry carried 600kg of heavy water, destined for German
> atomic bomb research and production. The action killed 12 German
> troops and 14 civillians. The action has ever since been hailed as an
> heroic event, and there has been virtually no focus on its morally
> problematic nature.
As it should. Although civilians were killed in the attack, they weren't *the
targets* of the attack. And all things being equal, the attackers may have even
regretted the civilian deaths. The death of the military individuals would
obviously be considered as justified resistance, and the destruction of ferry
seems to me to be a huge event, given its potential threat to humanity.
>
>
> The event is described in the 1965 movie "The heroes of Telemark":
>
> http://www.imdb.com/Title?0059263
>
>
> I feel confident that there are numerous similar events from other
> parts of occupied Europe, in which violent actions of terrorism are
> employed with the support of the occupied civillians.
I don't consider attacks against militaries as terrorism. That is war. To
bring this back to the Palestinian question, I wouldn't have a problem with
Palestinian resistance if it were directed against the Israeli military, but it
isn't.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) Let's just stick to the normal usage/definition of words... not your distorted definition. I think this is pretty good: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) I think this is a very important point, which I would like to see more focus on. It is a sad fact that occupied people tend to use violent and immoral action against the occupiying force. It should also be noted that such actions, which can be (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
