Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So you'd be against Jewish rebels carrying out acts of terrorism in late 1930s Germany against the Nazi Party? You'd be against Kurds carrying out terrorist attacks against the Baathist Party in the early 90s in Iraq? How about Cambodians using terrorism against Pol Pot?
Terrorism is a tactic. Its merits should be judged on a case-by-case basis just like any other type of combat or warfare tactic.
|
Hmm..I think we probably need to define terrorism then. The examples you give I believe to be guerilla warfare, not terrorism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
let me make a short version, since less is more somehow.
there is no terrorism.
there are political actions.
the question of justification lay in who is doing them and why.
|
I like this answer roach. It actually looks like an essay prompt I once had. It's a great starting point for a discussion.
Is this then presupposing that all "terrorist" acts are politically based or extensions of political entities (in the same manner that militaries are considered the security apparatus of the state, or military action as an extension of economic action which is an extension of political action?).
Why no distinction in defining terrorism but instead, confining it as strictly a political act?
If we examine recent terrorist activity then yes, a good argument can be made that terrorist acts are political acts. But why the separation? I still contrue it to be an act of terror, whether political or not.
Secondly, if we are to define acts of terror as political action, then are we necessarily legitimating it?
(out of town, be back Sunday)