Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
| From | paulh |
| Date | 2002-04-18 04:05 (2002-04-18 04:05) |
| Message-ID | <4t9sbuggvee3kt2au92d0jr9sjl70e9qgd@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | TradeSurplus |
| Followups | Russ (1h & 58m) > paulh TradeSurplus (2h & 3m) David Flood (19h & 2m) > paulh |
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:09:31 GMT, "TradeSurplus" <tradesurplus@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess thats why I made the statement ( a number of times) that it is MY (fluid) definition of Terrorism. I've never made statements that this is some official definition.paulhTradeSurplus
other side...then they're both terrorists.. And the Army isn't.
But in order to say this you must have some definition of terrorist that you are using.
In fact, you appear to have defined terrorists in this and other recent posts as: Persons engaging in combat without uniforms AND (without government backing OR without a popular mandate). Where AND and OR are logical operations and ( ) indicates priority.
And that's fair enough, if that's your definition. You can't necessarily expect other people to subscribe to it though.
Russ's claim that the IRA were not terrorists before 1975 may well be valid according to his definition of terrorism but invalid according to yours. In effect, you are both using the same word to describe different phenomena so it is only to be expected that the application of that word will differ.Quite so... in fact you could possibly even put forward the case that each organisation should be reviewed individually for their status and that Organisations can change in nature. There is no reason that the IRA could be one thing one year and something else the next.. altho Russ' belief that they can change on a weekly basis is going too far. There seems to be this belief that because we have a word, Terrorist, that therefore we should also have a one sentence easy definition of what it means that, when applied, easily seperates all the Terrorist organisations from all the Revolutionary ones. I doubt that there is such a definition. And therefore you have to make a decision yourself, or on a communal basis as to what a Terrrorist organisation is. AFAIK Australia defines the IRA as a Terrorist organisation and so do I. I can't help it if someone else doesn't based on their definition of the word. Thats why this is often a futile argument.But to use a statistic on deaths to prove it seems abhorrent to me.. as if there is a specific ratio of dead people that once met excuses a groups actions.
paulh
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
