There is no internationally agreed legal definition though.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The definition is sitting right in the fucking dictionary.
Fuck Israel
It is accepted as much as any other definition in the dictionary. Using a different definition or allowing anyone else in the same discussion to use a different definition makes the discourse meaningless. I don't care if your own personal definition aligns with the accepted definition or not. The point is you have a personal definition at all, and allow people theirs.ruisleipa wrote:
ffs lrn2 rd.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not using the accepted definition. You yourself state that fact many times. The accepted definition is in the dictionary. There is little to no difference between dictionaries. Anyone who uses any other definition is manipulating words to their own ends, not making an argument on its own merit. You act like this makes their definitions valid.
The 'accepted' definition I quoted...isn't universally accepted. if you bother doing some reading on terrorism definitions you'd know that too. Dictionary definition change as well. It just happened that the definition I found is very close to mine. So as far as I'm concerned we can use that definition, great, cos it supports my viewpoint. But if you want to use one of the other definitions floating around be my guest, but thanks again for providing support to my argument. In other words, contrary to your atatement above, I AM using the accepted definition, if you want to accept the definition I gave a few posts ago. I never said I wasn't using the 'accepted' definition which you'd know if you bothered reading my posts. I simply said I am using one definition and there are others that people are arguing about all the time.
"well since there IS no accepted definition of 'terrorism' and several possible ones my position is as valid as yours or anyone else's"
Is BF2S a courtroom? No? Then unless the question in the OP is "Are Confederate soldiers guilty of terrorism?" then the legal definition is irrelevant.Dilbert_X wrote:
There is no internationally agreed legal definition though.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The definition is sitting right in the fucking dictionary.
FM wrote:
Is BF2S a courtroom? No? Then unless the question in the OP is "Are Confederate soldiers guilty of terrorism?" then the legal definition is irrelevant.
Small difference, the dictionary definition is way too limited and irrelevant.OP wrote:
Were Confederate Soldiers Terrorists?
Fuck Israel
OK so for the sake of argument we'll take that dictionary definition I posted earlier as the de facto definition of terrorism. In which case the answer to the OP is yes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is accepted as much as any other definition in the dictionary. Using a different definition or allowing anyone else in the same discussion to use a different definition makes the discourse meaningless. I don't care if your own personal definition aligns with the accepted definition or not. The point is you have a personal definition at all, and allow people theirs.
"well since there IS no accepted definition of 'terrorism' and several possible ones my position is as valid as yours or anyone else's"
Your question doens't even make sense, just like that whole statement.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Is BF2S a courtroom? No? Then unless the question in the OP is "Are Confederate soldiers guilty of terrorism?" then the legal definition is irrelevant.
What is a Freedom Fighter?
In a post 9-11 world, the word “terrorist” is being used in the media more than ever. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difference between the definition of a “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” has blurred. We often ask ourselves, “What is the difference?” Some say anti-coalition fighters should be called “freedom fighters.” Freedom fighters do not take cover in civilian property or public schools and hospitals, nor do they blow up cafés or create firefights with a large civilian population present. These men do not fight for the freedom of their people. These men create a state of fear and terror. A true freedom fighter would never put the lives of people at stake, and furthermore a true freedom fighter must tackle the challenge of resisting an occupying military while liberating the people.
The media has always twisted the true meaning of a freedom fighter. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are not freedom fighters. Men such as Fidel Castro, George Washington and members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) are true freedom fighters. They fight for what is best for their people; they fight against oppressive regimes. But what are the differences between these men and terrorist? For one, their motives are rarely monetary and never do they brutally force people to fight with them. The ones that make it further later set up regimes that they believe would most effectively benefit their people.
Although “resistance” groups such as the IRA and the Mahdi Army (Iraqi) fight against foreign occupants, they are very different from each other. The reason why the phrase freedom fighter fits so well into the IRA is because no matter how atrocious the acts committed against the British are, they never put their own people into the same position. When the IRA plot attacks against British troops, they take into consideration the safety of the civilians nearby. When they set up road side bombs, the only casualties are British troops. The IRA even issued an open apology for the civilian casualties they had caused. The Mahdi Army however, kills more Iraqi’s then American troops with IED’s. This shows their lack of consideration for the Iraqi populace. Calling them freedom fighters would be a disgrace to the men who bleed for the liberation of their people.
Fidel Castro is an example of a man who is only known for being a dictator, but never known as a freedom fighter. Castro was part of the initial attacks on the Moncada Barracks, putting his own life at risk, but history textbooks would never see him as a freedom fighter. Despite being captured during the attacks and eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison on the islands, he did not give up. Without fear, Castro continued his armed revolution against the US-backed Batista regime. Castro put his life at risk again for the people of Cuba, bestowing upon the country free health care and education after successfully toppling Batista. Despite claims of how oppressive his regime is, the people of Cuba love Castro. This love is evident from the lack of an opposition to the Cuban government, as there have been many unsuccessful attempts to overthrow Castro, including the Bay of Pigs invasion.
George Washington is the best example of a freedom fighter. Against great odds fighting an experienced military, he was always there with his men even in the worst of times. More importantly, he did not give orders to his men to attack any suspected Loyalists, but only to concentrate to defeat the British Army. After the American Revolution, Washington turned down his salary as President, claiming he is only a servant of the people.
The main difference between the men mentioned in this essay and the insurgents in Iraq is that, they are men who put the lives of their people before anything else. Freedom fighters also do not use scare tactics in recruitment, or even forcefully taking sons away from their mothers to fight for “their cause”. Freedom fighters would warn the mothers of the dangers their sons face, they do not send their men in suicide missions, as they are people of their country as well.
In a post 9-11 world, the word “terrorist” is being used in the media more than ever. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difference between the definition of a “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” has blurred. We often ask ourselves, “What is the difference?” Some say anti-coalition fighters should be called “freedom fighters.” Freedom fighters do not take cover in civilian property or public schools and hospitals, nor do they blow up cafés or create firefights with a large civilian population present. These men do not fight for the freedom of their people. These men create a state of fear and terror. A true freedom fighter would never put the lives of people at stake, and furthermore a true freedom fighter must tackle the challenge of resisting an occupying military while liberating the people.
The media has always twisted the true meaning of a freedom fighter. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are not freedom fighters. Men such as Fidel Castro, George Washington and members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) are true freedom fighters. They fight for what is best for their people; they fight against oppressive regimes. But what are the differences between these men and terrorist? For one, their motives are rarely monetary and never do they brutally force people to fight with them. The ones that make it further later set up regimes that they believe would most effectively benefit their people.
Although “resistance” groups such as the IRA and the Mahdi Army (Iraqi) fight against foreign occupants, they are very different from each other. The reason why the phrase freedom fighter fits so well into the IRA is because no matter how atrocious the acts committed against the British are, they never put their own people into the same position. When the IRA plot attacks against British troops, they take into consideration the safety of the civilians nearby. When they set up road side bombs, the only casualties are British troops. The IRA even issued an open apology for the civilian casualties they had caused. The Mahdi Army however, kills more Iraqi’s then American troops with IED’s. This shows their lack of consideration for the Iraqi populace. Calling them freedom fighters would be a disgrace to the men who bleed for the liberation of their people.
Fidel Castro is an example of a man who is only known for being a dictator, but never known as a freedom fighter. Castro was part of the initial attacks on the Moncada Barracks, putting his own life at risk, but history textbooks would never see him as a freedom fighter. Despite being captured during the attacks and eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison on the islands, he did not give up. Without fear, Castro continued his armed revolution against the US-backed Batista regime. Castro put his life at risk again for the people of Cuba, bestowing upon the country free health care and education after successfully toppling Batista. Despite claims of how oppressive his regime is, the people of Cuba love Castro. This love is evident from the lack of an opposition to the Cuban government, as there have been many unsuccessful attempts to overthrow Castro, including the Bay of Pigs invasion.
George Washington is the best example of a freedom fighter. Against great odds fighting an experienced military, he was always there with his men even in the worst of times. More importantly, he did not give orders to his men to attack any suspected Loyalists, but only to concentrate to defeat the British Army. After the American Revolution, Washington turned down his salary as President, claiming he is only a servant of the people.
The main difference between the men mentioned in this essay and the insurgents in Iraq is that, they are men who put the lives of their people before anything else. Freedom fighters also do not use scare tactics in recruitment, or even forcefully taking sons away from their mothers to fight for “their cause”. Freedom fighters would warn the mothers of the dangers their sons face, they do not send their men in suicide missions, as they are people of their country as well.
It's not a small difference at all. It's the difference between the truth and lawyer bullshit.Dilbert_X wrote:
FM wrote:
Is BF2S a courtroom? No? Then unless the question in the OP is "Are Confederate soldiers guilty of terrorism?" then the legal definition is irrelevant.Small difference, the dictionary definition is way too limited and irrelevant.OP wrote:
Were Confederate Soldiers Terrorists?
"The dictionary definition of a word is way too limited and irrelevant [i]because I have my own definition in my head and I want to use that one so fuck you the real meaning of words."
And why would we do that?ruisleipa wrote:
OK so for the sake of argument we'll take that dictionary definition I posted earlier as the de facto definition of terrorism. In which case the answer to the OP is yes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is accepted as much as any other definition in the dictionary. Using a different definition or allowing anyone else in the same discussion to use a different definition makes the discourse meaningless. I don't care if your own personal definition aligns with the accepted definition or not. The point is you have a personal definition at all, and allow people theirs.
"well since there IS no accepted definition of 'terrorism' and several possible ones my position is as valid as yours or anyone else's"
A definition from a legal dictionary was posted. Why not use that one? Why would we use the one ruisleipa decided to use, simply because that one best supports his argument?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
that's exactly my fucking pointFEOS wrote:
A definition from a legal dictionary was posted. Why not use that one? Why would we use the one ruisleipa decided to use, simply because that one best supports his argument?
The IRA weren't freedom fighters thats for sure, they were terrorists - attacking civilian targets with no military value, and continuing to do so well after they had achieved their supposed democratic objective. Their raison d'etre, to impose minority rule on their fellow men is hardly stuff of legend either.Cybargs wrote:
What is a Freedom Fighter?
In a post 9-11 world, the word “terrorist” is being used in the media more than ever. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difference between the definition of a “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” has blurred. We often ask ourselves, “What is the difference?” Some say anti-coalition fighters should be called “freedom fighters.” Freedom fighters do not take cover in civilian property or public schools and hospitals, nor do they blow up cafés or create firefights with a large civilian population present. These men do not fight for the freedom of their people. These men create a state of fear and terror. A true freedom fighter would never put the lives of people at stake, and furthermore a true freedom fighter must tackle the challenge of resisting an occupying military while liberating the people.
The media has always twisted the true meaning of a freedom fighter. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are not freedom fighters. Men such as Fidel Castro, George Washington and members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) are true freedom fighters. They fight for what is best for their people; they fight against oppressive regimes. But what are the differences between these men and terrorist? For one, their motives are rarely monetary and never do they brutally force people to fight with them. The ones that make it further later set up regimes that they believe would most effectively benefit their people.
Although “resistance” groups such as the IRA and the Mahdi Army (Iraqi) fight against foreign occupants, they are very different from each other. The reason why the phrase freedom fighter fits so well into the IRA is because no matter how atrocious the acts committed against the British are, they never put their own people into the same position. When the IRA plot attacks against British troops, they take into consideration the safety of the civilians nearby. When they set up road side bombs, the only casualties are British troops. The IRA even issued an open apology for the civilian casualties they had caused. The Mahdi Army however, kills more Iraqi’s then American troops with IED’s. This shows their lack of consideration for the Iraqi populace. Calling them freedom fighters would be a disgrace to the men who bleed for the liberation of their people.
Fidel Castro is an example of a man who is only known for being a dictator, but never known as a freedom fighter. Castro was part of the initial attacks on the Moncada Barracks, putting his own life at risk, but history textbooks would never see him as a freedom fighter. Despite being captured during the attacks and eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison on the islands, he did not give up. Without fear, Castro continued his armed revolution against the US-backed Batista regime. Castro put his life at risk again for the people of Cuba, bestowing upon the country free health care and education after successfully toppling Batista. Despite claims of how oppressive his regime is, the people of Cuba love Castro. This love is evident from the lack of an opposition to the Cuban government, as there have been many unsuccessful attempts to overthrow Castro, including the Bay of Pigs invasion.
George Washington is the best example of a freedom fighter. Against great odds fighting an experienced military, he was always there with his men even in the worst of times. More importantly, he did not give orders to his men to attack any suspected Loyalists, but only to concentrate to defeat the British Army. After the American Revolution, Washington turned down his salary as President, claiming he is only a servant of the people.
The main difference between the men mentioned in this essay and the insurgents in Iraq is that, they are men who put the lives of their people before anything else. Freedom fighters also do not use scare tactics in recruitment, or even forcefully taking sons away from their mothers to fight for “their cause”. Freedom fighters would warn the mothers of the dangers their sons face, they do not send their men in suicide missions, as they are people of their country as well.
The French resistance hid amongst the population, they certainly were freedom fighters. There were many times they had to weigh the cost of reprisals against civilians versus the military value of their action.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-19 07:45:44)
Fuck Israel
No, the international community does not accept the dictionary definition so it makes no sense to use it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"The dictionary definition of a word is way too limited and irrelevant [i]because I have my own definition in my head and I want to use that one so fuck you the real meaning of words."
Fuck Israel
What international community? What right do they have to not accept the dictionary definition?Dilbert_X wrote:
No, the international community does not accept the dictionary definition so it makes no sense to use it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"The dictionary definition of a word is way too limited and irrelevant [i]because I have my own definition in my head and I want to use that one so fuck you the real meaning of words."
point being the definition isn't agreed upon and varies from source to source.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What international community? What right do they have to not accept the dictionary definition?
try and keep up.
the definition varies? please link to a dictionary that defines a terrorist as something different from any other dictionary.ruisleipa wrote:
point being the definition isn't agreed upon and varies from source to source.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What international community? What right do they have to not accept the dictionary definition?
try and keep up.
Okey dokey...does this convince you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatister … rism_5.htmThe definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the International community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/gui … definition(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorismNo one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … ordef.htmlter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/terroristTerrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practitioners. Even the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter” is still alive and well. Listed below are several definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of the Terrorism Research Center, we have adopted the definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
—Brian Jenkins
Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
—Walter Laqueur
Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
—James M. Poland
Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.
—Vice-President's Task Force, 1986
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
—FBI Definition
http://www.answers.com/topic/terrorismter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun
1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
Terrorism refers here to the public health consequences and the methods for prevention of the purposeful use of violence or threats of violence by groups or individuals in order to serve political or personal agendas. This article does not include what has been termed "state terrorism," the use of violence by a nation-state without clear necessity for self-defense and without the authorization of the United Nations.
Let me break down lowing's post for you ruisleipa.
checklowing wrote:
please link to a dictionary that defines a terrorist
awwwww...posting links to lots of google sources that all mean the same thing doesn't satisfy all the requirements. Better luck next time.lowing wrote:
as something different from any other dictionary.
let me break this down real simple Flaming Maniac cos you obviously seem to be having trouble understanding basic English.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Let me break down lowing's post for you ruisleipa.checklowing wrote:
please link to a dictionary that defines a terroristawwwww...posting links to lots of google sources that all mean the same thing doesn't satisfy all the requirements. Better luck next time.lowing wrote:
as something different from any other dictionary.
1) I say there is no one universally agreed definition of 'terrorism'.
2) lowing disagrees and asks for proof.
3) I post several instances of differing definitions and scholars/experts who also say there is no one universally agreed definition, proving my point that there IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION.
4) You post some irrelevant tripe.
That's where we are now. Now do you have anything useful or intelligent to contribute?
You didn't offer differing definitions. They are all the same. Demonstrate they are different in anything but trivial ways.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toaster
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/toaster?view=uk1.
an instrument or appliance for toasting bread, muffins, etc.
2.
a person who toasts something.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/toaster• noun an electrical device for making toast.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toasterA mechanical device used to toast bread, especially by exposure to electrically heated wire coils.
OMG no universally accepted definition of toasterone that toasts; especially : an electrical appliance for toasting
lol that's pretty funny.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toasterhttp://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/toaster?view=uk1.
an instrument or appliance for toasting bread, muffins, etc.
2.
a person who toasts something.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/toaster• noun an electrical device for making toast.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toasterA mechanical device used to toast bread, especially by exposure to electrically heated wire coils.OMG no universally accepted definition of toasterone that toasts; especially : an electrical appliance for toasting
Is a machine intended for toasting? It's a toaster.
Is an action intended to produce an effect through terror? Then it's a terrorist act.
I mean, I think I gave my personal opinion earlier, which pretty much accords with what i just wrote. But I was acknowledging the fact that other definitions of terrorism are used in other situations. The FBI definition, for example, is not the same as the dictionary definition.
But I'm sure you noticed that even in the 'dictionary definition' there are...er...different definitions.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
So, which one do you want to use? The answer to the OP is yes if one definition is what you're talking about, or probably not if you like the FBI definition. Or some other definition, of which there are plenty.
As for your assertion that all the definitions are 'the same', it's so bizarre I don't know what to say to it.
I don't even understand what you're arguing about.
The FBI and all other definitions given mean the same thing. You have to demonstrate significant differences between the definitions. This is not a difficult concept.
fucks sake I'm not about to start teaching the difference meanings of English words to you. If you think all the definitions are the same, I can't help ya.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The FBI and all other definitions given mean the same thing. You have to demonstrate significant differences between the definitions. This is not a difficult concept.
Then you are incapable of making your point. The same and essentially only point you have been trying to make for days.
Yeah, to people unable to understand English, apparently.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Then you are incapable of making your point. The same and essentially only point you have been trying to make for days.
You are the one who doesn't understand what "demonstrate" means.
mmmm