What seperates the two? One Man's patriot is another man's terrorist If the Palestines *win* in Isreal . . . . Arafat maybe painted at the Patriot of Palestines Now since Isreal has the upper hand [Read The US's Favor] He is a terrorist Why is Sharon not seen as a Man behind the killings for Isreal? not to make this about Arafat and Sharon but any person in general who has taken up arms in the protection of his group [i.e. George Washington, Sam Houston, etc] What seperates one from the other beyond WHO WINS? and Whose side you on? Rocket River
they are both terrorists, and if someone more reasonable on each side would shoot them, peace might have a chance
Tactics. I don't know much about Arafat, but the problem with the Palestinians is that they go after civilians. Obviously, they don't have to resources to battle it out toe to toe with the the Israelis, but that just means that fighting isn't the way for them. They oughtta take a look at history and see how things worked out for Ghandi and MLK. I do wonder, though, how much control Arafat has these days.
I agree with this. I think both Sharon and Arafat are terrorists. It's wrong to intentionally target civilians.
Right before the American Revolution, many British tax collectors were tarred and feathered. How should we view that - patriotism or terrorism? (For the record, I am not comparing this situation to the one in Israel/Palestine. I am only interested in opinions on the above situation.)
agreed you can't target civilians. if you do, you are a terrorist. if you kill civilians while reasonably trying not to, that is part of a military action that cannot always be avoided.
Absolutely. Great point. But let's not deceive ourselves. Right or wrong, the American government is seen around the world as a terrorist organization. Do we consider our government a "terrorist"? Absolutely not. But to the families of the tens of thousands of foreign civilians we've (accidentally) killed in the last ten years, it's understandable for them to believe differently. It's all a matter of perspective, and where you draw the line.
So Saddam <b>is</b> a terrorist, right? Just want to get that clear... I know he's been called a tyrant, a dictator, and an A-hole but I want to get the tag "Terrorist" affixed to him while the timing is ripe.
Like many of the instances sighted above, doesn't it depend on who is doing the labeling? To a Kurd, Kuwaiti, or Ba'athist party member the answer is easy. Considering we as Americans supported him in his war against Iran, isn't the answer a little more difficult?
I think the particularly pertinent distinction is the intentional targeting of civilians. Anyone who does that is a Terrorist. I appreciate that the question is really one of perspective, but it is also unavoidable that, as a free nation, we could and should care less about the perspective of some interests, i.e. should we respect the preferences of North Korea.
Not to get into a semantic argument but both the Palestininians and the Isrealis kill civilians, right? Or is someone not a terrorist if it is "collateral damage"? The only reason I brought this up is that we as Americans are very slow to see how we are percieved by the rest of the world. BTW - do the N. Koreans target S. Korean civilians? I am asking honestly. What classes them as "terrorists"?
Didn't the USA drop two little tiny yet powerful bombs on Japan to force their surrender? Sometimes the answer isn't always as simple as you think.
Extraordinarily good point. I see the logic stream in dropping the bombs on Japan and agree that it was necessary, but that was intentional targeting of civilians.
And the smallpox-ridden blankets we administered to Native American men, women and children? You would have to label that bioterrorism, brilliantly ahead of its time. And by the way, for those of you already shaking with patriotic rage, I am not hating my country. I am loving it and since I dearly love this nation, I want all of us to think carefully when we use words like terrorism, and especially when our leaders use words to promote all sorts of international and domestic policies. I fear the nation I love is painting itself into a corner with a brush labeled "terrorism."
My point about North Korea was not that they were terrorists but that their despicable policies have ground their people into submission so their ideas just don't count... or something like that! <b>Panda</b> has raised a tough question. I don't know what the answer is. Is that it was retribution for the attack at Pearl Harbor enough of an answer to justify? That's one to wrestle with. The stakes are much higher now. I don't think we had a truly accurate conception of what can of worms we were opening. Maybe Einstein did...
Not really that impressive a point. Times were different, and understandably, definitions change over time.
