 |
| |
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No they weren't. The French resistence was by and large the military wing of the Communist Party. It did not take it's orders from the government in exile, though it did cooperate with the Allies. So under your definition, they were terrorists. Tito's resistence in Yugoslavia wasn't carrying out it's attacks on the Nazis under the Yugolsav government in exile, nor were the Greeks or Italians. Overwhelmingly they were led by Communists who intended on setting up a Communist state after the Nazis were driven out. By your definition, the Viet Cong would have been terrorists, since they were not agents of a state, but an indigenous army opposed to the government of South Vietnam.
|
My definition works perfectly well thank you.
If indeed, as you say, these groups were not working under the authority of the governments in exile, then they were indeed terrorists. I am not sure you are correct though - surely the French govt in exile would be quite happy to give the French resistance legitimacy if they were fighting the Germans. It doesn't matter who their orders come from, as long as they were officially sanctioned by a government (ie. not acting on their own behalf).
quote:
Furthermore, many terrorist groups act on behalf of governments. Hizbollah has carried out many attacks at the behest of Syria and Iran. The Nicaraguan Contras carried out a bloody terrorist campaign on behalf of the United States. UNITA and RENAMO carried out bloody terrorist campaigns on behla fo South Africa and the United States.
|
This is all just covert support. There is no official recognition of these groups by the supporting countries, never mind taking responsibility for their actions (or am I wrong - do the Syrian govt take resonsibility for Hizbollah?).
If, for example, Syria were to formally support the actions of Hizbollah committing attacks on Israeli targets and take responsibility for Hizbollah's actions then this would be an act of war against Israel (to which I would not object Israel responding to), and Hizbollah would not be a terrorist organisation but a partisan group working under Syrian authority.
Similarly the Contras were never officially under American authority and the Americans never took responsibility for their actions. Therefore they were terrorists, and would only become partisans or guerillas if operating under American authority.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
Do you not realise that you can't just say "no" you have to say why - why that definition contradicts what I said.
And I am not comparing it to terrorism, other people are - and I am agreeing that it is. But I could not care less what you want to call it, no matter what word you subsribe to it, it will still be the same thing, and just as wrong. And that is what i said in my post.
Just to clarify - I will go over and explain every part of my post so you might understand it.
quote:
See my previous post. |
Here, what I am saying is that he is still ignoring or rationalizing the problem in order to cloud the issue, or dismiss it completely. ie. he is arguing semantics, or just flatly saying that "no, that's not a problem". - he isn't actually saying anything.
quote:
But if you really think that, maybe you should go back to page one and read the definition. Or if you want, I'll give you another definition, from dictionary.com: |
Here, since he seems to be arguing semantics, I tell him to read the definitions of terrorism.
quote:
I don't see why people are arguing about semantics, anyways... regardless of what you want to call it, it's not right. |
And here, I am saying that bickering about semantics is only clouding the issue, it doesn't change the subject one bit at all, and no matter what word you give it, it is the same thing.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2002 14:28
but israeli army attacks palestinian people... houses, families etc... not terrorists...
ZoboZeWarrior
|