Terror Can Be Noble

[dcentity2000]

During the American revolution, American freedom fighters were known as terrorists by the ruling British Government.

I know there is a difference between this and Osama Bin Laden's Jihad, but I wonder how many DISers could put words to it.

More subtle is Britain's IRA. Do you see much of a difference?

The difference is even more subtle when it comes to the late Yasser Arafat. Do you think it is even possible to differentiate?

I know there are differences and that they make all the difference (no pun intended), but how easy do you find actually defining the differences?

No flames please! I'm not syaing that the founding fathers were like Bin Laden!



Rich::

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by dcentity2000


No flames please! I'm not syaing that the founding fathers were like Bin Laden!



Rich::

Then what, exactly, are you saying?

I'm not flaming, I'm just seriously perplexed. You seem to be saying that they are. But I could be just misunderstanding your post.

 

[tonyswife]

Terrorists target innocent civilians and children in order to further their agenda of intimidation and fear. Freedom fighters target their oppressors only. The difference seems pretty clear to me.

 

[jrydberg]

Those fighting for the independence of the American colonies did not attempt to "terrorize" the civilian population. They were the civilian population. Their targets were British (and mercenaries hired by the British) military. They were fighting a war, not attempting to inspire terror.

By the way, I wouldn't say the difference with Yassir Arafat is subtle at all. There's a world of difference.

 

[HappyMommy2]

Hmmm...interesting question.

But the difference between Al Quaeda-type terrorists and our own Founding Fathers is clear. I don't recall ever hearing that our own revolutionaries' goal was to WIPE OUT British civilization; clearly Bin Laden and his followers hope to wipe out American civilization, as evidenced in the audio/video messages that call upon terrorists to destroy all Americans everywhere.
That's a pretty major difference, in my mind.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Those fighting for the independence of the American colonies did not attempt to "terrorize" the civilian population. They were the civilian population. Their targets were British (and mercenaries hired by the British) military. They were fighting a war, not attempting to inspire terror.

Well, actually, they did. They terrorized civilians that didn't side with their cause.

 

[WDWHound]

The whole premise of this thread ("Terror Can Be Nobel") is false.

The American freedom fighters were not terroristists regardless of what anyone called them. Terrorist attack civilians, the American revolutionaries never did.

There is no difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda when push come to shove. Both use terrorism and niether one is noble.

 

[dcentity2000]

The difference in my mind between Arafat and Bin Laden is that Arafat cared for his people instead of just targeting his 'enemies'. He adopted about 30 children whos parents were killed in Israeli attacks (accidental), opened schools, medical points and so on.

The point I was making was that although all are different, they all share some common ground.

The difference I put between them all and the American revolution was that only the American revolution targeted soldiers; unlike a great many freedom conflicts, citizen casualties were not an objective.

[EDIT] Spelling mistakes corrected. One point added:

• All conflict by definition causes terror, even if the conflict itself is in quest of a noble future



Rich::

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The difference in my mind between Arafat and Bin Laden is that Arafat cared for his people instead of just targeting his 'enemies'. He adopted about 30 children whos parents were killed in Israeli attacks (accidental), opened schools, medical points and so on.

• All conflict by definition causes terror, even if the conflict itself is in quest of a noble future


[FONT]

Arafat enriched himself at the expense of "his people". There's nothing noble about that.

And yes, all armed conflict causes terror, but in many cases (the American Revolution) that's an unfortunate byproduct, not a goal in and of itself.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The difference in my mind between unlike a great many freedom conflicts, citizen casualties were not an objective.

This is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. It's a fundamental and important difference, IMO, not a mere matter of degree.

That they may share some traits does not make them comparable. Water contains oxygen but water is not oxygen nor is oxygen water.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by tonyswife
That they may share some traits does not make them comparable. Water contains oxygen but water is not oxygen nor is oxygen water.

Well put



Rich::

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by dcentity2000


Well put



Rich::

LOL! That's IT!??!! And here I was all ready for a debate.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Well, actually, they did. They terrorized civilians that didn't side with their cause.

Equating a bit of wartime intimidation from a bygone era with modern terrorism is just plain absurd IMO. One can just as easily say that Union troops in the Civil War were terrorists. They didn't "terrorize" civilians in either case.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Those fighting for the independence of the American colonies did not attempt to "terrorize" the civilian population. They were the civilian population. Their targets were British (and mercenaries hired by the British) military. They were fighting a war, not attempting to inspire terror.

So by your definition the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism: They were dropped on civilians, there were virtually no military targets worth mentioning.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Arafat enriched himself at the expense of "his people". There's nothing noble about that.

And yes, all armed conflict causes terror, but in many cases (the American Revolution) that's an unfortunate byproduct, not a goal in and of itself.

I guess what American conservatives hurts most in connection with Arafat is the fact that he received the Peace Nobel Prize. He was a terrorist, who made a 180°-turn in his life.
I'm kind of confused, because usually conservatives love things like that: They even made an alcoholic who supposedly turn his life towards good their president.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by Viking
So by your definition the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism: They were dropped on civilians, there were virtually no military targets worth mentioning.

Incorrect. I did not define terrorism in my post.

As for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think the only comparison that even remotely applies is the strategic bombing of England and the subsequent bombing of Germany in the years following. Each was accepted as a distasteful but necessary part of such a war.

The only difference with Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the magnitude of the bomb and its consequences. If you condemn those bombings, you must then logically condemn the attacks on London, Dresden, etc. as well. Not an unreasonable position, mind you, but not one I take.

The bombings, in each case, served a substantial military purpose -- in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki they ended the war without what surely would've been a costly invasion of the Japanese mainland.

While I think Truman made the right decision, I think the only thing clear about the bombings is that it was a difficult decision to make.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by Viking
I guess what American conservatives hurts most in connection with Arafat is the fact that he received the Peace Nobel Prize. He was a terrorist, who made a 180°-turn in his life.

Actually, I don't think he ever made a 180. Arafat never really condemed terrorism and was in pretty tight with Hamas.

 

[missypie]

I wonder how people defined the term "terrorism" n the 1770s? I bet one reason the British thought of the revolutionary colonists as terrorists is because the colonists hid in the woods, etc. to shoot, instead of marching in a straight line toward the enemy as the British and other armies did at the time.

 

[Teejay32]

No trouble with distinctions here. Colonists wanted independence from King George; Osama wants independent nations united in some caliphate. Not sure how many Revloutionary War soldiers fought out of religious duty - some might have - but for Muslim extremists it's a given. The act of war itself for many of them is the sole purpose. If average citizens of Boston were blowing themselves up in those days, I'm not aware of it.

I have heard educated people insist that the IRA and its comparable adversaries have some kind of purpose - religious, nationalist, territorial - whatever. I laugh. They should all be thrown in jail where they belong and the insane British triumphalism ended immediately - it's an embarassment for God's sake. Americans don't march through Germany and Japan afaik, and it's only been a half-century.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Isn't a certain amount of terrorist conditioning based on using some of the principles used in brainwashing? Isn't that how they get parents to strap bombs to their children and to run into crowds? Terrorism brings up more cult like images for me. Like a bunch of lemming-like followers, following the crazed leader over the precipice with glee.