Whats the diifernse between a terrorist and a hero??

[craig]

In my view it is depending what side you are on.
If your are on there side they are heroes if you are not then they are terrorists. You could argue the point for hours. To us Sept 11 were cowardly terrorists but to scum they represent they were heroes. The other side of the coin was Germany bombing London Warsaw etc and Japanese bombing Pearl habour etc they where cowards and criminals but the Bombing of Japanese and german cities were heroic acts but brave men against the odds. So there are 2 sides to every arguement. But I strongly believe that there are no excuses for sept 11 to me they where cowards and scum but just using that ti make apoint. So I hope no one is offended buy that
Cheers Craig

 

[Gunner13]

craig,

I think you missed the point of the discussion, partcularly the parts between MontYB and myself. It's not perspective, it methods and targets. Apply that and the situation is clear.

 

[craig]

No I do not think that i have missed the target as I am commenting on the initial post from grizzly not on anything specific that you have made the topic doesn't have to revolve around what 1 or 2 people say. grizzly asked what was the difference between a hero(good guy) and a terrorist(badguy) and i am adding my view on that and how you can say that the discussion and point is NOT perspective is unclear as every point of view is a perspective You wrote in an ealier comment.

The key thing that distinguishes a terrorist from any of the others, no matter who they are or what they are fighting for, are the tactics used. Terrorism is the use of force, or the threat of force, against a society or government to force or forestall change. Terrorists deliberately target noncombatants (women, children, injured, medical and emergency personnel) and uninvolved third parties (relief workers, aid agencies, religious organizations) to get what they want. The others will not.

Is not that what the US airforce and Bomber command did to German and Japanese cities during WW2 so are you saying that the men flying those planes were terrorists??? These men I do not however I am sure that German and Japanese civilian populations of the time would disagree. Terrorism is avery tricky subject and ambigous. You and I are either getting confused or the way you wrote your comment was misunderstood buy myself. Hvae a good day

 

[AussieNick]

Today the SS are considered some of the worst terrorists in the history of the world, do you think that would be the case if Germany had won the war?

Now that is blurring the word terrorist. The SS can't be called terrorists. Cold blooded killers, soldiers, madmen or other such term perhaps. A terrorist is actually, in it's truest essence, somebody who uses threat or acts against CIVILIAN targets to influence another group (usually a government), hence the "terror" aspect of the name.

If they fight a government/military they can be insurgents/freedom fighters/rebels/marauders/bloody land pirates or whatever else, but they are not terrorists unless they specifically use "terror" tactics on civilians to influence a government.

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[MontyB]

I wouldnt put money on that as the SA wasnt particually liked by either Hitler nor the SS (who saw them as rivals) also I dont think anyone sees the SS or Hitler as "terrorists" but instead mass murderers (I would also refine this statement to include only some elements of the SS and not all).

I was just talking in a general term MontyB.

One of the reasons I continue to clarify this particular type of statement is that there seems to be a movement towards labelling every organisation that does something "horrific" as a terrorist. The reality is that these were government groups carrying out state sponsored activities which I think is something people don't like to face as it says that any government can do it therefore its more palatable to label them terrorists.

 

[craig]

One of the reasons I continue to clarify this particular type of statement is that there seems to be a movement towards labelling every organisation that does something "horrific" as a terrorist. The reality is that these were government groups carrying out state sponsored activities which I think is something people don't like to face as it says that any government can do it therefore its more palatable to label them terrorists.

_________________

Well montyB i agree with you totally about the SS and SA they in my eyes are not Terrorists neither where The US airforce and Bomber Command but I was trying to make a point that terrorism is arelative subject. However to sat taht the SA /SS where not terrorists due to government sanction but at the time the talliband was the "Afghan government" does that excuse them from being terrorists I dont think so to me thay are still filthy scum but to there own people they are not.Well that is my point of view have a good day

 

[MontyB]

One of the reasons I continue to clarify this particular type of statement is that there seems to be a movement towards labelling every organisation that does something "horrific" as a terrorist. The reality is that these were government groups carrying out state sponsored activities which I think is something people don't like to face as it says that any government can do it therefore its more palatable to label them terrorists.

_________________

Well montyB i agree with you totally about the SS and SA they in my eyes are not Terrorists neither where The US airforce and Bomber Command but I was trying to make a point that terrorism is arelative subject. However to sat taht the SA /SS where not terrorists due to government sanction but at the time the talliband was the "Afghan government" does that excuse them from being terrorists I dont think so to me thay are still filthy scum but to there own people they are not.Well that is my point of view have a good day

Yep I see your point I think part of the problem extends to the various interpretations of the word terrorist as I pointed out to Gunner13 earlier and I think he mentioned a few posts back.

quote="Gunner13"]

I think you are arguing terrorism as a definition verses the popular use of the word.

Not arguing anything, we are having a discussion about what terrorism is and is not.

I am not doubting your definition's correctness but the "real" use of the word has come to symbolise pretty much anyone who fights back against a larger and recognised authority

Very likely, which is just intellectually sloppy and can lead to a waste of time and energy (just look at the postings trying to compare appels and oranges in this thread )

The argument seems to come down to whether you use the literal definition or the popular definition.

 

[grizzly]

In my view it is depending what side you are on.
If your are on there side they are heroes if you are not then they are terrorists. You could argue the point for hours. To us Sept 11 were cowardly terrorists but to scum they represent they were heroes. The other side of the coin was Germany bombing London Warsaw etc and Japanese bombing Pearl habour etc they where cowards and criminals but the Bombing of Japanese and german cities were heroic acts but brave men against the odds. So there are 2 sides to every arguement. But I strongly believe that there are no excuses for sept 11 to me they where cowards and scum but just using that ti make apoint. So I hope no one is offended buy that
Cheers Craig

Craig You seem to see the same view that I do.
I've been saying the whole time that not everyone in the world looks at people the same way.
There are people in the word that see Bin Laden as heros.

Also in another reply: Gunner the Sons of Liberty did go after civilians and third party people.