Hardcore_gamer said:
The very word terrorism is a pointless, one. There is no such thing as a terrorist. Just people labeled terrorists by the other side.
I would disagree. I would say that there should be a term for those fighters who insist on blurring the lines between soldier and civilian (which, may I remind you, is a violation of Geneva Conventions) and so sow terror among civilians. There needs to be a term for those who deliberately aim at civilians, who meet their enemies in their homes and not a battlefield.
As for revolutions, aside from the part where I'm opposed, I am certain that any group could choose to reserve its revolution to acceptable battlefields, or at least not aim AT civilians, deliberately.
santaandy said:
Using violent means to inflict fear upon civilian or otherwise innocent people. Politics and personal goals are not part of it. That's one of the reasons freedom fighters are not terrorists, they have political/personal goals. They also don't (usually) target civilians, and they stop when they're done. Terrorists don't.
Actually, terrorists usually have ethical claims as well. Again, compare them to envoronmental movements. Environmental movements claim that the environmental crisis must be dealt with at a global scale, or not at all. They therefore operate on a global scale, without regard for national boundaries, and at times without regard for national interests. Rarely if ever are they attached to a nation, (can anyone say where Greenpeace is from? Now tell me why it matters, at this point?) but will more often have offices and efforts in many. They have a sense that their work is futile, but nevertheless worthy and they must therefore do it.
Replace Greenpeace/environmental movements with al-Qaeda and environmental crisis with Muslim suffering and you'll have an accurate picture of al-Qaeda. They aren't amoral. They're just ok using violence to meet their ends. So is ELF. Are they terrorists?
Edit: Also, to the two people who said that horrible quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Our revolutionary tradition is too shaped by the Terror of the French revolution, but the original American revolution was relatively bloodless when it came to civilians and other non-combatants. Freedom fighters don't have to become terrorists. But if you choose to fight for freedom by sowing terror, instead of by meeting your oppressors on the field of battle, you're a terrorist. Period.
