 Originally Posted by ninja9578
Depends on who you ask.
Exactly my point. It seems that the word has been thrown around so much, and attributed to so many arbitrary definitions, that it appears to have lost its true meaning.
 Originally Posted by Universal Mind
A terrorist is somebody who targets and kills civilians for political reasons illegally.
This is actually a case in point. By who's(whose?) definition is that the meaning of a terrorist? A terrorist, as I understand, doesn't even have to kill anyone to be a terrorist. Also, the word implies the method they use to influence, not whether or not the method is legal. Someone can be on a deserted island, with 30 other people and no rule of law, and be a terrorist. On the flip side, if someone targets and kills civilians, "legally," does that make them better than a terrorist?
 Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What is extra special about Islamofascist terrorists is that they do it irrationally. It's just, "I'm mad. Me kill THEM because they got same nationality. Grrrrrrrr!!!!!" Fuck that scum.
If you would, please respond to some of the other questions in my OP, particularly:
 Originally Posted by Oneironaut
What about their actions, from their perspectives? If your home/family/community is being purged/desecrated/oppressed/etc. by a force that was 1000x more powerful than your own, to what extent would you go to make sure your rights were respected, your land was unoccupied by the oppressors, your ideals were not trampled upon, and your people were left to their own ways of life? If you knew that attacking (in this case) the outsiders' military, alone, was futile, and would do nothing but get you killed, what would you do to insure your own freedom?
Or, in another scenario: If the Native Americans used terrorist acts on the white man - after they came in and pretty much usurped their way of life - and no other method proved capable of stopping the flexing of the white man's "superiority," would they be doing it irrationally?
|
|
Bookmarks