Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[js207]

Perspective is everything.

One persons freedom fighter is indeed another's terrorist. Thats just basic logic 101.

We've been through this already: freedom fighter and terrorist are quite distinct. One is a goal, the other a tactic or strategy. Some people may be both, others are clearly only one or the other: Timothy McVeigh might arguably be both from some perspectives, but Gandhi? Clearly no terrorist - objectively, he did not employ violence or terror - but recognised widely as a freedom fighter since he fought for freedom. Your confusion of the two is not 'logic 101', but a failure thereof.

[thir]

We've been through this already: freedom fighter and terrorist are quite distinct. One is a goal, the other a tactic or strategy. Some people may be both, others are clearly only one or the other: Timothy McVeigh might arguably be both from some perspectives, but Gandhi? Clearly no terrorist - objectively, he did not employ violence or terror - but recognised widely as a freedom fighter since he fought for freedom. Your confusion of the two is not 'logic 101', but a failure thereof.

I cannot for the life of me see how you distinguish between the two. Can you define a terrorist by atrocities done? Because armies do the same.

Examples of armies:
The Blittz of London could not be justified with strategic targets alone.
The bombing of Dresden - after the nazis were beaten, was pure revenge - understandable, but wrong.
The atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasagi were done to terrorize a surrender earlier than it would have come - some say Japan was already ready to surrender, at least after Hiroshima.
In Iraq, the destruction of Faluja was specifically called 'operation Shock and Awe' in recognition of the fact that the operation was not just to take it out as a stronghold, but to terrorize the country into surrender.

It would seem that if small, non-soldier gruops commit atrocities without a specific military target but to terrify, then they are terrorists, but if an army does it, it is ok.

Where are the rules? And who sets them??

[Thorne]

Where are the rules? And who sets them??

As in most cases, the rules are set by the bully with the biggest fist, and they change according to his whims.

The Israeli's attacking an Iranian nuclear site is an act of self-defense. The Iranians attacking an Israeli nuclear site would be an act of terrorism. See the difference?

[thir]

As in most cases, the rules are set by the bully with the biggest fist, and they change according to his whims.

The Israeli's attacking an Iranian nuclear site is an act of self-defense. The Iranians attacking an Israeli nuclear site would be an act of terrorism. See the difference?

No.

I can't tell if you are ironic, or I just do not get it - ehm..

[Thorne]

No.

I can't tell if you are ironic, or I just do not get it - ehm..

I was being ironic, yes. I just haven't been able to find the Irony font.

[leo9]

We've been through this already: freedom fighter and terrorist are quite distinct. One is a goal, the other a tactic or strategy. Some people may be both, others are clearly only one or the other: Timothy McVeigh might arguably be both from some perspectives, but Gandhi? Clearly no terrorist - objectively, he did not employ violence or terror - but recognised widely as a freedom fighter since he fought for freedom. Your confusion of the two is not 'logic 101', but a failure thereof.

An old scientific principle says, "instead of asking what it is, just ask 'what does it do?'" It's a lot clearer if we speak of methods.

Terror tactics are defined as those that are aimed at undermining morale and causing (as the old WWII officialese had it) "alarm and despondency," rather than causing strategic damage. Blowing up the Pentagon, if Al-Quaeda had achieved it, would have been a plausible military tactic: blowing up the WTC was a terror tactic.

Terrorists, as commonly defined, are guerillas that use terror tactics. The Talliban in Afghanistan, for the most part, seem to focus on military targets; a roadside bomb against an army vehicle is not a "terrorist" weapon, just a shot in a guerilla war. (Almost identical devices were used by the Resistance in WWII Europe.)

When national governments use terror tactics, it's usually not admitted as such. When the British Army responded to Ghandi's protests by shooting down a square full of peaceful demonstrators (for what the commanding officer later admitted was the "moral effect," i.e. the terror value,) they argued for months that it had been a riot action. When Israel indiscriminately shelled Gaza, focussing on hospitals, power plants and the like, they still maintain the fiction that they were targetting "terrorists." "Operation Shock and Awe" in Iraq was remarkable for being explicitly named as a terror tactic, but since (like Israel in Gaza) they also used banned weapons such as white phosphorus, they clearly felt they had a free pass to break every rule.

[leo9]

When the British Army responded to Ghandi's protests by shooting down a square full of peaceful demonstrators (for what the commanding officer later admitted was the "moral effect," i.e. the terror value,) they argued for months that it had been a riot action.

And incidentaly, though Churchill had the decency to condemn the Amritsar massacre, he was responsible for the aerial bombing of villages in Afghanistan. Just one of the reasons the Afghans didn't bless us as liberators...

[leo9]

And incidentaly, though Churchill had the decency to condemn the Amritsar massacre, he was responsible for the aerial bombing of villages in Afghanistan.

Just to be perfectly clear, I've been asked to note that this was under the British Raj, not the current Afghan war!