3 ms·
Even speaking as a US citizen, I can admit that the actions of some rebels did constitute terrorism. Innocent Loyalist civilians were targeted, for the purpose
by mullingitover 12y ago
Even speaking as a US citizen, I can admit that the actions of some rebels did constitute terrorism. Innocent Loyalist civilians were targeted, for the purpose of political change. It doesn't get much closer to the textbook definition of terrorism than that.
But hey, the winners write the history books.
- vonmoltke 12y agoThe actions of many national armies in wartime counts as terrorism by application of various textbook definitions was well. That does not make those armies or their soldiers terrorists.
- mullingitover 12y agoI disagree. However, nobody wants to admit that their team did evil things, so we whitewash. Very rarely do people see anything but black and white when it comes to 'Us vs Them' situations.
- vonmoltke 12y agoThen you are extending the definitions of "terrorist" and "terrorism" to such broad lengths as to make the terms useless for anything except political and propaganda purposes. It has nothing to do with admitting to or denying evil things. Terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Terrorists use political violence to further their ends, but not everyone who uses political violence is a terrorist.
- mullingitover 12y ago> Terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Exactly. It's terrorism when other people do it.
- mindcrime 12y agoBut hey, the winners write the history books. Yeah, that too. That's another reason that all of these definitions are a bit fuzzy.