|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 22, 2023 23:11:32 GMT
How would you define one?
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 23, 2023 0:23:16 GMT
Classically a person that uses unlawful use of violence
But the regime which determines it's unlawfulness is often unlawful itself
Mandela was imprisoned for being a Terrorist and certainly used violence but would unlikely be described as a Terrorist today
Gandhi was described as a Terrorist by the British Government used no violence but was imprisoned for it.
Nathuram Godse, the man who assassinated Gandhi, was branded a Terrorist but today is celebrated as a hero by Indian Nationalists including the ruling BJP Party who consider Gandhi a Traitor to Hindu's
History is written by the winners, sometimes nuanced later as attitudes change
|
|
|
|
Post by satoshi on Nov 23, 2023 5:36:16 GMT
Anyone with pride in their own country
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 23, 2023 7:58:58 GMT
The subjective nature of the definition is the reason the BBC don't like using it.
Threatening non-combatants with violence is still rife and Britain has years of history doing it.
Those proscribed seem to be so by the other side of the argument usually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Nov 23, 2023 8:11:16 GMT
The definition is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.
As wannabee has pointed out some people would take issue with it though because that definition would mean Nelson Mandela was one and people would understandably push back against that.
It’s interesting really because people have no problem applying to the label to Islamist terrorists or far-right nut jobs like the New Zealand shooter. Would people be as willing to apply the label to left wing people who engaged in acts of violence etc for political aims? As the Mandela example shows above the line is pretty blurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 23, 2023 8:11:26 GMT
a person or group of people who use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of “political” aim or gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 23, 2023 8:21:24 GMT
a person or group of people who use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of “political” aim or gain. So when does legitimate protest spill over into terrorist behaviour? |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 23, 2023 8:41:08 GMT
The subjective nature of the definition is the reason the BBC don't like using it. Threatening non-combatants with violence is still rife and Britain has years of history doing it. Those proscribed seem to be so by the other side of the argument usually. I don't have a problem with any media outlet labelling Hamas as a terrorist organisation, as they often mention in news bulletins. If they're going to do that though, the full phrase used should, however, be something like "the fighters of the democratically elected Hamas government, which the UK government considers to be a terrorist organisation". That would be a much more accurate and politically less biased way of describing them. A terrorist is anyone outside of the ruling power who uses terror in any form for political ends. Governments can also use terror but then it's usually called a war crime, during wars, or an abuse of power at other times. Which is why the paragraph above is important. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Nov 23, 2023 8:51:23 GMT
All governments are terrorists. All oppress and control civilians all intimidate civilians, all manipulate civilians for political gain. And all governments are prepared to kill its own citizens for political gain and control when needed. In fact our own pm fits into a few of these.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 23, 2023 8:53:39 GMT
a person or group of people who use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of “political” aim or gain. So when does legitimate protest spill over into terrorist behaviour? You better ask wiki  |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 23, 2023 9:09:47 GMT
All governments are terrorists. All oppress and control civilians all intimidate civilians, all manipulate civilians for political gain. And all governments are prepared to kill its own citizens for political gain and control when needed. In fact our own pm fits into a few of these. Democracy, the illusion of free will. |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Nov 23, 2023 9:12:55 GMT
The Chinese consider the Dalai Lama a terrorist. Much like beauty - it is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 23, 2023 9:25:11 GMT
Any form of intentional assault on an innocent individual or an individual's life.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Nov 23, 2023 9:38:29 GMT
a person or group of people who use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of “political” aim or gain. Tommy's mob on Armistice Day would seem to fit that description 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 23, 2023 9:43:47 GMT
Those proscribed seem to be so by the other side of the argument usually. I don't mean to be flippant but this answer really should be the end of the thread. A lot of people would suggest that the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism on the planet and that's not only from the wars that they have directly participated in but rather from the numerous examples of covert operations to destabilise or overthrow legitimate governments around the world, often resulting in mass civilian casualties. But you will never see America prosecuted for war crimes or terrorist activity because they control the narrative. And as Andy has said above, if you control the narrative, then you get to decide who the terrorist is (or indeed isn't). |
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Nov 23, 2023 10:58:33 GMT
One of my teachers described me as a classroom terrorist once but I never killed no one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Nov 23, 2023 10:59:57 GMT
One of my teachers described me as a classroom terrorist once but I never killed no one. So who did you kill fella?  |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 23, 2023 11:03:49 GMT
One of my teachers described me as a classroom terrorist once but I never killed no one. So who did you kill fella?  |
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Nov 23, 2023 11:27:46 GMT
One of my teachers described me as a classroom terrorist once but I never killed no one. So who did you kill fella? My classmates' hopes and dreams. |
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Nov 23, 2023 12:27:57 GMT
The Chinese consider the Dalai Lama a terrorist. Much like beauty - it is in the eye of the beholder. So was Mandela |
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 12:35:40 GMT
Anyone with pride in their own country 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Nov 23, 2023 12:50:29 GMT
Another man's freedom fighter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 23, 2023 13:26:11 GMT
Another man's freedom fighter. Very true. Extremely rare to get a unified view on this, it usually boils down to fighting for something the person doing the defining doesn't believe in. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 23, 2023 13:36:15 GMT
The definition is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. As wannabee has pointed out some people would take issue with it though because that definition would mean Nelson Mandela was one and people would understandably push back against that. It’s interesting really because people have no problem applying to the label to Islamist terrorists or far-right nut jobs like the New Zealand shooter. Would people be as willing to apply the label to left wing people who engaged in acts of violence etc for political aims? As the Mandela example shows above the line is pretty blurry. Yes of course if it was appropriate, who did you have in mind? |
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 23, 2023 15:26:10 GMT
a person or group of people who use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of “political” aim or gain. Tommy's mob on Armistice Day would seem to fit that description 🤔 They would indeed and I’m sure there’s plenty of other examples you can find too. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 23, 2023 16:27:57 GMT
Another persons freedom fighter
|
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Nov 23, 2023 17:05:12 GMT
Another persons freedom fighter French resistance. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 23, 2023 17:12:13 GMT
The definition is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. As wannabee has pointed out some people would take issue with it though because that definition would mean Nelson Mandela was one and people would understandably push back against that. It’s interesting really because people have no problem applying to the label to Islamist terrorists or far-right nut jobs like the New Zealand shooter. Would people be as willing to apply the label to left wing people who engaged in acts of violence etc for political aims? As the Mandela example shows above the line is pretty blurry. Yes of course if it was appropriate, who did you have in mind? Che Guevara? Do I get points 🤔 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 23, 2023 17:24:21 GMT
Yes of course if it was appropriate, who did you have in mind? Che Guevara? Do I get points 🤔 😊 Oooh, a new game! I'll see you and raise you with Carlos the Jackel. Terrorist top trumps. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 23, 2023 17:28:56 GMT
Che Guevara? Do I get points 🤔 😊 Oooh, a new game! I'll see you and raise you with Carlos the Jackel. Terrorist top trumps. Was tempted to say Jezza Corbyn but decided the pile on wouldn't be worth it 😆 |
|
