Re: Deapalegia
 

No. Its the difference between (putting it in lighter terms:) attacking civilian targets or military targets.

You called it a bad reason, I called it an excuse.
First of all, if you dub "Terrorism" as "Freedom Fighting", then you definitely are supporting terrorism.
Second, just tell me, which arab country openly condones terrorism and works to try and thwart it?

Re: Agrajag
 

Which country has never used terrorism in the name of freedom fighting? Or even just blatant expansionism? or worse yet to try and change the government of a nation that they have no interest in ruling themselves (as the taliban do)?

But again, be careful people. You are safer making the effort to put things in dominions terms on a dominions board (as the thread started). If you dont make that effort then dont make noise if the thread goes away.

Re: Agrajag
 

Actually I don't know any arabic countries that openly condones terrorism so I'm not even sure which ones you're referring to here. The only ones that I can even guess at are the ones the media CLAIMS openly condones terrorism.

As for difference between attacking civilian targets and military targets. US bombs factories and plants that they claim are producing weapons, etc. Where do you draw the line?

Second, even if I dub "terrorism" as "freedom fighting", how does that in anyway support it? I merely find it contraversial that countries would keep pointing the fingers when they're guilty of the claim themselves. INciting uprisings isn't terrorism? Supporting a renegade military force to overthrow a government isn't terrorism? How does those actions not harm civilians, albeit even MORE so. One hundred or so civilians dies to a bomb (I'm being generous with the numbers here), THOUSANDS dies during an uprising.

And second, may I point out, I called it simply a reason. I am not choosing to sway it into the ambigious area of "good" or "bad". YOU were the one who first dubbed it officially as a "bad" reason. Not I.

Thank you,

Re: Deapalegia
 

No it isn't - as KissBlade said, these days it's semantics. When the USS Cole was attacked via suicide bombing off the coast of Yemen, the US Government (and a good chunk of the military) declared it an act of terrorism, despite the fact that the Cole was a military target (a destroyer).

Myself (former Marine) and some of the military I worked with disagreed with calling it terrorism - after all, suicide bombing has essentially been a part of warfare for at least 150 years - attempts with manned torpedos in the USA's "Civil War" (talk about semantics, look at the difference between what southerners call that war and what the rest of the country does, or the different names the British and Americans have for the "Revolution/War of Independence" of 1776), with explosive laden pinnaces (small boats) no doubt going back further.

Similarly - mortar attacks on US military camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism. Improvised explosive devices targetting military convoys? Terrorism. Troops not being given the armor they need and should have - terrorism. Whoops - sorry, that's our government / military screwing the troops and getting them killed, not terrorism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Point being - tactics the USA (and many other nations) have used in "legitimate" wars like WW1 and WW2 are now being called "terrorism" as a matter of politics and semantics.

The lines do get fuzzy sometimes - even against military targets, some actions might well be considered terrorism. Poisoning the food the troops are being served, or blowing up a bar full of off-duty troops (as per El Salvador). (Unless it's Halliburton poisoning the troops by serving them rotting vegetables and spoiled meat in order to increase profits - obviously this isn't terrorism.)

In Dominions terms : we have military suicide bombings, the amulet that blows up. And we have terrorism, Bane Venom charms used to poison the general population. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Deapalegia
 

now THIS is terrorism.

CoW Wiki

Re: Agrajag
 

Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?
Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)

I'd say right there is where I draw the line. Destroying military resources (IE Factories) is borderline. Exploding in a bus and killing many civilians, is definitely terrorism.

Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.

Fine then, if you want to argue semantics... You called it a reason, while I disagree and think its not a reason at all.
Happy now?





Well, I don't call that an act of terrorism.

Like I said, I wouldn't call that terrorism, just like I wouldn't call Kamikaze terrorism. But the examples you gave are of attacking military targets anyway...

Like I previously said, I wouldn't call that terrorism.
Nor that.
Sorry, what are you refering to here? (I'm asking this seriously, I don't know about what you are talking)
And? All you're saying is that the term is wrongly invoked as a political move.

I wouldn't call that terrorism either.


As for dominion-terms, Berserk seems like an awfuly suicidle spell. If Im not confusing spells, then Pheonix Pyre is pretty suicidale as well!

Re: Deapalegia
 

Maybe not. Terrorism takes Freedom away from the people. What are the aims of modern terrorism? To force other people to live the way you want them to.

Freedom fighting is the other way around. You fight against someone that tells you what you should do or not do. A bigger version of puberty, and certainly more bloody.

And while both things are very close, I think there is still a distinct difference.

Edit

Or, in dominion terms - it's the difference between pythium and marignon

Re: Deapalegia
 

Actually, the reason I point out why people say "Freedom fighting" is that it's just a spin on the words. They essentially MEAN the exact same thing. Ask any terrorist if they actually think they're a terrorist or fighting for their beliefs. What'd you think they'll reply?

Re: Agrajag
 

I am assuming you're not understanding what I'm saying because English isn't your primary language. Let me clarify. First off, I'm implying that BOTH are negative since they are one and the same.

Second, allow me to point out that the US has "accidentally" bombed embassies in the past. Just as factories where there were "suspected" of producing weapons were attacked. Vietnam, napalm was liberally used to attack suspected military targets destroying many many innocent lives. Yes, it was war, so how do you differentiate between a military target vs. civilian target? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Lives, are lives, that's point. The distinction between a "military" target and a "civilian" target is purely a manmade conclusion. As you've well shown.

As I've pointed out before, you explode a bus, you kill twenty civilians or so. You incite a rebellion, you kill THOUSANDS. You displace a ruler, TENS of THOUSANDS dies.

Re: Agrajag
 

I recall more than a few, but very few of them actually meant it.

Glib. Do you know of any Western country that profits from terrorism?

Unless you're sticking with your definition of terrorism as "a deliberate military attack on a civilian target for political ends". In which case, as Cainehill said, I can think of plenty of acts of terrorism openly perpetrated by Western nations, but that's where that semantics barrier comes into play again.

Assuming that's not the case, let me just hypothesize that, had they the entire freakin' US Military at their disposal, the Hamas would never have resorted to terrorism, either. Though they might just have indirectly orchestrated terrorist actions in hostile nations, and secretly sold guns to terrorist groups. But that's another one of those things that's in the distant, nay, ancient past, and could never happen today. Nope. Nosiree Bob. Because the world's voters are wiser, and less inclined to take things at face value, nor to elect someone just because he does a passable cowboy impression.

Just because they're murdering innocents and using utterly illegitimate means, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom. Nor even that the nation or pseudonation for which they're fighting doesn't deserve its freedom.

Still, this is another one of those often meaningless terms that gets bandied about pretty much at random. Ya just don't see that many terrorists fighting for freedom these days.