How do you classify a terrorist? The dictionary says the following: An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result What would you call Nelson Mandela? I could call him a terrorist. The world calls him a Hero.
I consider terrorists non-state actors who inflict violence upon civilians. State actors can be labeled war criminals. Terrorists are different than revolutionaries. Although civilians can be harmed, revolutionaries target mainly military targets. There likely won't be any distinction propaganda wise, but the people on the battlefronts do know the difference, and it's them who ultimately defines the militants, like situation with al Qaeda and the residents of Baghdad.
How would the IRA fit into this? They primarily (or only?) targetted military and political assets, but most people considered them a terrorist group, I think.
There are people who use name callings and randomly throw out insults (intimidation) in order to win a debate (achieve a result). What do you call them?
Tough question. IRA sympathizers found it completely justified in their support. They were hailed as heroes by their own people. Individual Americans sent funding from abroad, and in the aftermath of peace, their political arm became a legitimate party. However, I think bombing political assets go a little too far because of the disproportionate ratio of civilians who wouldn't know better, and you could boil any target of significance into a political asset. I like to introduce another component to a terrorist's repertoire, and that is to use symbolic acts solely determined to strike fear in not only officials but also the public. I don't think my definition of a revolutionary would use indescriminate or randomly timed killings to further his goal. Finally, while I like to break down things into simple logical components, but I realize that if I were living in such a battlefront, my emotion would trump whatever logic I held before.
There may be some technical differences, like the scope of operation and such. But in terms of usage, doesn't it just depend on how much you like the people? If you hate them, you call them terrorists/insurgents. If you like them, they're freedom fighters. If you want to be neutral, they're guerillas.
I stumbled on this today, and although it's been posted before, it's worth seeing again. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UQBWGo7pef8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UQBWGo7pef8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
When we do it, we don't openly target civilians...We try to minimize civilian casualties. We don't get to suicide bomb women and children...we don't get to disparage and minimize women on choice and empowerment...We don't get to cut heads off and put it on the tele...
Wasn't something posted here about the USA having a list of 75,000 people who may be a terrorist, and one of them is Nelson Mandela.
He was, but the South African government beat Steven Biko to death and gunned down all kinds of unarmed black protesters; so armed insurrection was probably par for the course.
All you're saying here is that you have better weapons. Everyone TRIES to minimize, it's just that some CAN minimize more. It still seems like two sides of the same coin to me. It's just about winning the flip.
If the US military weren't conscious of reducing civilian casualties, then they wouldn't be dropping million dollar laser guided bombs.
