Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Russ
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromRuss
Date2002-04-18 19:07 (2002-04-18 19:07)
Message-ID<20020418130728.07832.00001765@mb-mv.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
Followspaulh
Followupspaulh (35m)
In article <1kstbugvrjc2009q0fphvsq13dcdbi8raj@4ax.com>, paulh <paulh@fahncahn.com>writes:

<snip>

So a group can now be both at the same time? Or mission by mission? I consider that distinction as absurd as you apparently find my analysis.

paulh
<g> No... you've misunderstood (again, altho I didnt make it as clear as possible) they can have different arms tho.. as in Sinn Fein and the IRA.

BTW, is *any* car bombing terrorism?

Pretty much so.. subject to my previous explanations.

Clearly car bombing a crowded thoroughfare at noon is terrorism, but what about at 2 a.m. with no one

around

and a warning phoned in ahead of time? Is that terrorism?

Yes

Why?

If instead of a car bomb, a plane drops a bomb on the very same target at noon when it is

crowded;

is that terrorism?

Yes...unless its a plane owned by a recognised goverment and there is a official state of war of some kind.

OK, so if a military plane drops a bomb on a target at noon crowded with civilians, it is not terrorism (although it may be something else)

At 2 a.m. with no one around?

see above

What about a car bomb of an army barracks? Is that ok?

no

Why?

Keep the questions coming....

Maybe using the Socratic method we can come up with a workable definition of terrorism for you. <g>

What defines terrorism? The target? The means? Both? Neither?

According to you its mathematics.

Actually, I've never said that. What I have argued is that military vs. civilians deaths is *evidence* as to whether a group can be termed a terrorist group or not. Rather I have defined terrorist (broadly) as targeting civilians. See below.

Wheres YOUR proof (since you've failed to answer it a number of times) that if only X percent of people blown up with carbombs are civilians then you're a freedom fighter but if its X+1% then you're a terrorist.

What you're asking for is absurd. It's not something I can *prove*. I submitted a definition of terrorism (a common one BTW) and then argued that civilian vs military deaths is relevant to determining whether a group is a terrorist group under that definition.

You're certainly free to dispute that, but you're going to have to come us with some sort of basis to support your disagreement. You can dispute my definition and come up with another. (You've tried this but your definition constantly changes) Or you can argue that civilians vs military deaths is not relevent and back that argument up with something.

Google
paulh (35m)