But if you’re not taking out civilians, you’re not a terrorist. I don’t think many people accept the definition of “terrorist” to include people who are fight solely against armed troops.
Under the right (wrong) circumstances, yes, I believe I would. If it was to save my country and strike a blow at an enemy we could not strike out at by other means, I hope I would have the courage, at any rate.
You are obviously all fine, peace-loving people and I wish I could say the same as all of you regarding civilans - but I’m not so sure I would be able to make the distinction if I were pushed as far as blowing myself up to further “The Cause”. The terrorists are not killing children because they are evil monsters who enjoy killing innocent children. They do so because they have been pushed too far. Walk a mile in another man’s shoes etc…
Oh, and when you mention the French resistance, you mean the one who shaved, marked and paraded all those women who may or may not have had “relations” with German soldiers? Just wondering…
Perhaps I’m overly pessemistic about human nature, but I suspect most people could be pushed to the point where even the children of their enemies become, in their eyes, legitimate targets.
Imagine the situation where your country is invaded, and the occupying force brutally rapes, tortures, and murders your loved ones. I’d like to say that in that situation, logic would overcome my hate, but in truth I really don’t know. Not being overcome with the emotion of that scenario, I can see right now that the children of even the hypothetical soldiers who did the deed are innocent.
But if actually happened? I hope I wouldn’t target children; today’s Revtim knows that’s wrong under any circumstance.
But a Revtim who actually went through it? Again, I hope not. But to be truthful, I have to admit it’s possible I’d want the entire country these people came from to die horrible deaths, children and all. And perhaps I’d do what I can to make that happen.
I’m not saying it’s right. I just cannot imagine what I’d do in that situation, so maybe the worst is possible.
I’m just sorry they didn’t shave, mark and parade that Nazi whore Coco Chanel . . .
Native Americans were considered terrorists for attacking settlements, including the women and children living in those settlements.
The settlers who attacked the Native Americans are not considered terrorists, even though their killing was just as indiscriminate and scary.
Nat Turner and John Brown were considered terrorists who purposefully went after “civilians”. But to them, slaveowners (and their families) were not innocent civilians; they were the main source of the problem. Going after the local militia would not have made sense. You go to the source.
I don’t think I’m above being a terrorist because I don’t think terrorism is always unjustified. If an evil dictatorship was suddenly installed overnight, I would hope that I’d be brave enough to do something. If slavery came back, I would hope I’d be brave enough to do something. Maybe the something would be peaceful, but maybe it wouldn’t be. I’d want to be open to either way.
Of course they are considered terrorists—do you know anyone who approves of their actions?
I dunno, Eve. In the wallet of most Americans, you can find a tribute to a terrorist who had the most severe bloodlust for Native Americans.
We may not approve of the killing of Native Americans, but we still honor their killers as legendary heros.
Well, we’ve done our own share of taking out civilians. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Vietnam come to mind. But as I understand it today, it includes small, under-funded, under-gunned groups who go for the biggest, cheapest, bloodiest bang they can get. Civilians are not the accidental victims; they are targets in and of themselves. I would hope I’d be taken out before I could get so caught up in a movement that I actually targeted innocents. I’d like to think I’m less political than that.
What makes someone a “civilian”? I’m not being snarky. My understanding of a civilian is someone who does not belong to an organized militia. But it’s not synonomous with innocent.
For instance, a slave rebel would have viewed everyone involved with the perpetuation of slavery–from slave trader to mistress–as fair game. If you’re standing over me with a whip, you’re not a civilian–whether your title be Massa or Missy.
Likewise, if you’re on my land, you aren’t any less of a trespasser just because you’re dressed in plainclothes.
I heard an Australian politician talking on the radio last year. Apparently his origins are Palestinian and he travels to the Middle East every couple of years. He was at a press conference and was asked about the suicide bombings and did he support them. He said that what most distressed him was that he knew families in Palestine that had not had running water for 3 generations and that there were people living there who thought that the most useful thing they could do was blow themselves up in the pursuit of something. He asked the reporters did they understand how desperate life must be, for death to be the preferable alternative and he was met by silence.
He felt that alleviating the suffering of one’s enemies was a better way to invest money while avoiding confrontation.
I regret that I can’t do justice to his off the cuff answers. I actually posted a thread asking for advice about a book that provided a balanced account of what is going on, but evidently no Doper knew of one.
Dont ask,
I don’t think I have myself works in English on this issue. I’m not at home so I can’t look it up.
But I seem to remember such a thread here and I am about sure I think I gave you the advice to start your reading at the UN website.
Further I probably said that you can find books about the history of this conflict in every good library. And in addition I probably said: To gain insight in both sides you need to read the views of both sides.
Salaam. A
As for the suicide bombing, I think not. My childhood indoctrination does not allow for one to take one’s own life for any reason whatsoever. I would however give my life in a fight, or risk my freedom and safety to stand for a cause worthy of my efforts. What the hell, I tend to get really fired up about the nightly news, so I can see myself getting fired up enough about a threat to the quality of my life to put myself into harms way
Well, no…they aren’t synonomous. But I’m talking the difference between blowing up a factory where munitions or whatever are being manufactured, and dropping a bomb in Dresden, where there was no military interest whatsoever. Yes, I suppose we all carry a degree of responsibility for what our country does, but then I guess that would make us all terrorists in some way or another. And I don’t think that description fits most of us.
The French Resistance as a matter of course killed French collaborators - civilians (as in non-military or paramilitary, not always unaffiliated with the government) because the repercussions of killing German administrators or military were pretty severe - collective punishment of French civilians in the area (50:1 ratio French civilans: Germans IIRC).
If you can’t kill the ones you want, kill the ones you can.
I know it’s fashionable to think of Andrew Jackson this way today, but I don’t believe you can show me a single instance where he intentionally caused the death of innocent civilians. At the battle of Horseshoe Bend, for example, he took care to offer women and children safe passage before beginning his attack.
If you are referring to the Trail of Tears, same thing. Did Jackson take the Cherokee’s land? Yes. Did he intentionally cause the death of civilians? No. He wanted them relocated, not dead. (The relocation was bungled, to be sure.)
As for his supposed hatred of Native Americans, please explain why he adopted a Creek child as his own?
You’d have a better argument with Phil Sheridan, William T. Sherman or (by extension) U.S. Grant. (Maybe you were thinking of the $50 dollar bill?)
Hell’s bells, you’re in California and with my luck you’re probably also a guy. Can’t catch a break! 
I won’t say there isn’t a point at which I wouldn’t entertain thoughts of committing an act of individual terrorism, since I don’t have a crystal ball and can’t see how my life will unfold, but seeing what such acts have achieved (i.e. nothing at all) and how effective such acts have been in furthering political agendas (i.e. completely useless) I would never consider actually going through with it.
Ben Franklin? He always seemed so reasonable. Can I get a cite for that? 
I guess “terrorist” is evolving to include any violent dissenter of a currently recognized political body.
Terrorist? Me? No. Not the kind that would fly a plane into a building or even blow up a building full of civilian government employees. There was a good point made about targeting the children of the enemy that gave me pause, however. Still… Could I wear black and do commando raids against a local outpost of an unjustified invader? Maybe, if I was reasonably sure that there wouldn’t be a blanket back-lash against the local populace (read: my family). And only if I thought it would deliver a better situation for…the local populace.
The first duty of a revolutionary is to win.
If a foreign power occupied my country, I would become a covert revolutionary.
I would act alone, and I would kill the enemy as ruthlessly as I could. I would most particularly try to kill them in times and places they believed themselves to be secure. I would kill collaborators whenever I could find them, and do so in favor of killing enemy soldiers. I would keep a bomb in my possession to assure that I would get at least one enemy or collaborator when I was exposed and captured.
I would plan to make occupation of my home an entirely undesirable policy. I would move to more “pacified” areas of my country for the specific purpose of making it as untenable as possible to accept the surrender or pacification of Americans. If a generation passed, and the occupation continued, I would continue to kill its members. I would use bullets, bombs, poison, disease, or radiation without compunction. I would lie, cheat, steal, and kill in the most disgusting and frightening ways I could imagine. I would try as often as possible to target the highest ranking occupation forces I could identify, but I would kill even privates without mercy. I would never surrender.
Now you know why I don’t think we can accomplish anything in Iraq.
Tris
If the US were invaded, I’d probably fight back. Guerilla tactics and all that fun stuff, but only attacking military personnel and leadership. Ditto if I were born a Palestinian.
If pogroms were to start here, I’d find the perpetrators’ wives and kids and etch their faces with acid without feeling the slightest bit of remorse.
(a somewhat Pittish response)
What a bunch of unmentionables we have here! “Boo-hoo-hoo! I can’t do anything against the oppressors or my family might get killed!”
Fuck your family. They are expendable, just as you are. The goal is to drive the invaders out but they are banking on you being too weak to take any real risks. They will not fear you unless you show them you are capable of anything.
So, yeah, I guess I’m capable of becoming a terrorist or even a suicide bomber (and nobody is truly a non-combatant, though children will not be dangerous for a few years, so all are fair game), though one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. What would drive me to that point would be the same things that drove the French or Nat Turner to it: oppression by a force of monumental evil.
[aside]
OTOH, I’ve yet to be convinced that the American Revolution would have motivated me in the same way. Wait a few years for the Brits to get more distracted by France (which was inevitable) and to build up the local militias, preferably at British expense (“Those darn Indians are at it again, Governor.”) then when the time was right offer to help cover Louis XVI’s or Napoleon’s back while declaring independence. But that’s another discussion.
[/aside]