Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
| From | paulh |
| Date | 2002-04-17 21:10 (2002-04-17 21:10) |
| Message-ID | <cshrbusk7qqbjaipvigr9cf0fs6smlqidn@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | TradeSurplus |
| Followups | TradeSurplus (59m) > paulh Russ (1h & 17m) |
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:40:29 GMT, "TradeSurplus" <tradesurplus@hotmail.com> wrote:
TradeSurplusI try and stay away from the definition issue cos, as you say, its very difficult to cover every base without having a massive list of criteria. I just dont see how a non-military organisation supported by a minority part of a community (altho the very community itself is debateable) can be freedom fighters, whereas a similar organisation supported by the majority of the community is terrorists. If neither is part of a governmental body, neither goes into open combat with uniform, both break the laws, both kill people on the other side...then they're both terrorists.. And the Army isn't.
David Flood wrote ...David FloodTradeSurplus
Terrorism... is what the other guy does.
That seems to be the most common definition.
The pocket OED (not the best source but the only one I have) is not very useful here. It defines terrorism as: "practice of using violent and intimidating methods, esp. to achieve political ends", which covers just about every military action ever.
I've never heard paulh's definition though. I'm curious to know where you got it.
Another plausible definition (OK I just invented it, but that's what most people seem to be doing) is that a terrorist act is one that uses covert operations to attack an enemy, where the primary goal is to make the enemy come to terms through fear of repeat attacks rather than through destruction of its ability to fight.
There are a few caveats and clarifications that could be put around that but I wanted to get a one sentence definition.
paulh
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
