But it's an interesting topic. In my opinion you cannot call people
attacking foreign soldiers terrorists, whereas people who attack
civilians probably qualify. The lines get very fuzzy though when you
have paramilitary contractors like intelligence specialists. And what
about the guys who drive the supply trucks?
Something like bombing Israeli tourist families who are camping in
Egypt clearly qualifies however.
Dana
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:14:09 -0400, Larry C. Lyons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the same time however, the so called patiots saw nothing wrong with
> burning the homes of loyalists and effectively running ethnic
> cleansing campaign against them. For instance one North Carolina
> county make any loyalist resident liable for any robberies, thefts etc
> that occured in the county. And George Washington praised the county
> for doing so.
>
> larry
>
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:11:44 -0500, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's funny, but only in the last few years have the methods of the
> > Minutemen and other American revolution fighters been referred to as
> > terrorism. Prior to this it was generally called guerilla warfare. I
> > think that's still a more accurate description of the methods because
> > of the targets involved. Terrorists may use guerilla tactics, but
> > using guerilla tactics does mean they are terrorists IMO.
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:51:04 -0500, Marlon Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > I think the winner/loser slant is really what defines terrorism.
> > > 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.
> >
> >________________________________
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
