Originally posted by inimalist
thats my pointwithout a clear definition of either term, they are indistinguishable by definition. the point is moot, because you could literally make up terms:
one man's flabastamin is another man's crubapalos
That's the point of the title with the exception of perspective and emotional input and passion. Causes are most emotive to those closest to them.
Originally posted by Juk3n
There is no one on the planet who could label Martin Luther the King a terrorist, there is no way to spin the definition of the term that would make it include him.
My grandfather fought hard to keep America racially segregated, just as it had been since it was founded. The militant marches of "Doctor" MLK spread unrimittant terror through him and his friends.
Hence terrorist.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My grandfather fought hard to keep America racially segregated, just as it had been since it was founded. The militant marches of "Doctor" MLK spread unrimittant terror through him and his friends.Hence terrorist.
The fact that people were terrified from a man walking in the street doesn't make the man walking a terrorist. People have phobias of balloons, that doesn't make a balloon an instrument of horror. MLK himself commited no single action that could be thought of as an act of purposefully instilling terror on a populus.
1: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
2: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
3: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
4: Killed people and/or planned to kill people (terrorist)
5: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
6: Killed people and/or planned to kill people (terrorist)
7: Didn't kill anyone but entered a nation into a war (not terrorist)
8: Didn't kill anyone but entered a nation into a war (not terrorist)
Easy.
Originally posted by inimalist
except that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorist
Do does that mean there's no distinction between the people in the list?...Of course not...Some were peaceful protesters who had their nations brand them as terrorists and perpetrated violence against them.
Others planned and executed the killings others...Seems an easy distinction to make.
Originally posted by Michael Collins
That's the point of the title with the exception of perspective and emotional input and passion. Causes are most emotive to those closest to them.
the problem with that stance is that there are ways to define "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" (even, as Bardock pointed out, in ways that they are not mutually exclusive), whereas your position rests on the fact that these terms can never have meaningful distinctions. It says more about the subjectivity of language than about anything political or sociological.
also, I'd point out, there are much better terms to use if one wants to have a meaningful discussion about the motivations, actions and ethics behind various types of violence or social movements. For instance, while I could reasonably argue that both GW and OBL are either "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", things like asymmetric warfare vs air superiority, or budgets for weapons, etc, provide much better descriptions of either man's military force.
If all you are trying to say is that politicians will use language that makes their side look best... cool... but I don't see much to discuss on that point.
Originally posted by jaden101
Do does that mean there's no distinction between the people in the list?...Of course not...Some were peaceful protesters who had their nations brand them as terrorists and perpetrated violence against them.Others planned and executed the killings others...Seems an easy distinction to make.
🙂 see the post directly under yours
my general response would be, why even use such nonsense terms anyways, unless as shorthand?
Originally posted by Juk3n
The fact that people were terrified from a man walking in the street doesn't make the man walking a terrorist. People have phobias of balloons, that doesn't make a balloon an instrument of horror. MLK himself commited no single action that could be thought of as an act of purposefully instilling terror on a populus.
He threatened to destroy the world as they knew it 😐 Terrorist.