Afterall, George Washington and his army fighting for self defense,
their motive was purely political. They didn't stick to fighting the
traditional/British way but chose to adopt Indian strategies. If we
accept Gruss's definition, we become a nation founded on terrorism.
Regardless, I think that the parts of the insurgency that are
attacking only military targets and not civilians are not terrorists.
The part that is attacking civilians would be considered terrorists by
me.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:34:04 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gruss,
> I think this definition waters down the more traditional definition which I
> thought included targeting civilians to create terror and weaken the will of
> the other party to fight. For example, one could argue that Iraq insurgences
> aren't being terrorists when they blow up a US Humvee. And history tends to
> modify the definition based on success. Terrorists for the losers. Freedom
> fighters for the winners.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Anytime somebody violently attacks someone else to accomplish a
> political objective, it's terrorism unless it's self defense. So yes,
> *I* consider the insurgency attacks terrorism and therefore
> unjustified.
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
