The disagreement

[Bobby Hogg]

Re: Bobby Hogg

Wrong...You are confusing terrorism, which is violent means against a civilian population in order to cause political change, with guerilla warfare, which is a violent means against a government and its military to cause political change. Now when you can actually see the difference, instead of relying on others to point it out to you, then you may play again.

No. Terrorism existed before 11/9/01, you know. Terrorism does not have to be directed towards civilians and that is only a fairly recent twist on the tactic.

Many terrorist groups, such as the IRA or Eta, aimed their attacks at the security and military forces, and the political establishment, of the sovereign entity they were attempting to overthrow.

Guerilla warfare refers only to a method of fighting, one that can be employed by any army, sovereign or otherwise. Terrorism is simply the use of violence to achieve a political aim by a non-sovereign organisation.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Re: Bobby Hogg

No. Terrorism existed before 11/9/01, you know. Terrorism does not have to be directed towards civilians and that is only a fairly recent twist on the tactic.

Many terrorist groups, such as the IRA or Eta, aimed their attacks at the security and military forces, and the political establishment, of the sovereign entity they were attempting to overthrow.

Guerilla warfare is simply a method of fighting, one that can be employed by any army, sovereign or otherwise. Terrorism is simply the use of violence to achieve a political aim by a non-sovereign organisation.

Guess you aren't a student of history, so I'll let you in on a secret.

I've been around long enough to have forgotten more about terrorism than you now know, and I know this...you are clueless as to the cause, effect, and reasons for terrorism, regardless as to which book you read. You are the one who mentioned 9/11...not me, so, instead of acting superior, pull your head out of your butt, and talk to me as an equal.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Re: Bobby Hogg

You obviously don't know an awful lot if you think guerilla warfare is anything other than a military tactic.

Nor do you know an awful lot if you think terrorism is only ever directed towards civilians.

If you don't want to be patronised, then please do not try to correct me in future when you are wrong.

 

[Stop Laughing]

Re: Bobby Hogg

...and I thought Jim McMahon was cocky...

 

[rrfield]

Re: Bobby Hogg

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

 

[rrfield]

Re: Bobby Hogg

...and I thought Jim McMahon was cocky...

He can drop kick like a mofo!

 

[Sharky]

Re: Bobby Hogg

terror:

4. violence (as bomb-throwing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary~>

terrorism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Re: Bobby Hogg

...and I thought Jim McMahon was cocky...

I'm cocky? I'll speak to someone in a respectful tone if they address me in one. Gato Solo tried to patronise me, for whatever reasons of his own.

 

[Sharky]

Re: Bobby Hogg

I see rrfield beat me to it.

 

[Sharky]

Re: Bobby Hogg

...and I thought Jim McMahon was cocky...

Bobby Hogg wasn't being cocky, he was simply expressing his point of view.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Bobby Hogg

Doesn't mention targets though.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Re: Bobby Hogg

Doesn't mention targets though.

Therefore one can conclude that "the target" does not define it as Terrorism otherswise it would be mentioned that a specific target makes it terrorism.


From the US Government Website firstgov.http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

How do you define terrorism?

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

"noncombatant targets" would also include military where no declaration of war was made ,so Gato's use of "Civilian" as a requirement for Terrorism isn't actually on the money .

 

[Gato_Solo]

Re: Bobby Hogg

Therefore one can conclude that "the target" does not define it as Terrorism otherswise it would be mentioned that a specific target makes it terrorism.

"noncombatant targets" would also include military where no declaration of war was made ,so Gato's use of "Civilian" as a requirement for Terrorism isn't actually on the money .

Nope. Sorry. The only non-combatants in the military are Chaplains and medical personnel. Whether war is declared, or not, all other members of the military are legal targets. I'm dead on.

As for Bobby Hogg...a nice rebuttal. I'm sure you took your time on that one, but you missed the point. You are wrong, and you think you aren't. Fact is...you know absolutely nothing about military tactics, about terrorism, or about me and what I do for a living. You are naive, and your points are without fact. They are only the opinion of the whiners who have no plan, and just want to blame somebody. What you called patronizing, I call education...which you obviously didn't take to heart. When you learn to look at things in a more detached manner, then, perhaps, you'll understand what I said. Until then, all I can do when you open your mouth is point and laugh.

 

[rrfield]

Re: Bobby Hogg

I'm cocky? I'll speak to someone in a respectful tone if they address me in one. Gato Solo tried to patronise me, for whatever reasons of his own.

Don't worry about it, if you aren't a bleeding-brained right-winger you will be patronized here. You will be called "one of them liberals" even if you aren't. So far everyone I've come across are good people, just opinionated.

Everybody's stupid except for me.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Re: Bobby Hogg

Don't worry about it, if you aren't a bleeding-brained right-winger you will be patronized here. You will be called "one of them liberals" even if you aren't. So far everyone I've come across are good people, just opinionated.

Now there's an intelligent opinion, if I've ever heard one...So people who don't agree with your opinionated ideas are 'bleeding-brained right-wingers'. So much for intelligent debate. Perhaps you should review your posts before you submit them, as this is the kind of insanity that makes those on the left look like morons. "If you can't debate the facts, then insult the people" seems to be the strategy from that side...

 

[rrfield]

Re: Bobby Hogg

If liberals are bleeding-hearts, conservatives are bleeding-brained.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Re: Bobby Hogg

If liberals are bleeding-hearts, conservatives are bleeding-brained.

And...if you notice...I never said that.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Re: Bobby Hogg

As for Bobby Hogg...a nice rebuttal. I'm sure you took your time on that one, but you missed the point. You are wrong, and you think you aren't. Fact is...you know absolutely nothing about military tactics, about terrorism, or about me and what I do for a living. You are naive, and your points are without fact. They are only the opinion of the whiners who have no plan, and just want to blame somebody. What you called patronizing, I call education...which you obviously didn't take to heart. When you learn to look at things in a more detached manner, then, perhaps, you'll understand what I said. Until then, all I can do when you open your mouth is point and laugh.

What has whatever you do for a living got to do with you being utterly wrong on this point of fact?

I've made no comment on who you are or what you do. You know nothing about me, either, I may remind you. You weren't trying to educate me, you were trying to condescend me. Which is fine if you're right, but you're not.

Here's a little something about me: I've lived in Northern Ireland all my life. I am by no means an expert on terrorism or pretend to be one, but I've lived through it. I've had family members jailed for being involved in a terrorist group, I've had several members of my family targetted by terrorist groups, I've had terrorist violence going on around me for quite a large part of my short life.

I've also watched history being made as I have lived, and seen terrorism in Northern Irish politics effectively eliminated slowly over the years to the point we see ourselves at today, where my generation may hopefully be the last to experience real terrorist violence in Northern Ireland.

So, I wouldn't mind an apology because you clearly made some base assumptions about me while I made none about you whatsoever despite being accused of it. I simply pointed out that you are incorrect.

 

[rrfield]

Re: Bobby Hogg

And...if you notice...I never said that.

Uh, it's a common label. Never said you did. And I'm not singling you out, I'm making broad generalizations

 

[Gato_Solo]

Re: Bobby Hogg

What has whatever you do for a living got to do with you being utterly wrong on this point of fact?

I've made no comment on who you are or what you do. You know nothing about me, either, I may remind you. You weren't trying to educate me, you were trying to condescend me. Which is fine if you're right, but you're not.

Here's a little something about me: I've lived in Northern Ireland all my life. I am by no means an expert on terrorism or pretend to be one, but I've lived through it. I've had family members jailed for being involved in a terrorist group, I've had several members of my family targetted by terrorist groups, I've had terrorist violence going on around me for quite a large part of my short life.

I've also watched history being made as I have lived, and seen terrorism in Northern Irish politics effectively eliminated slowly over the years to the point we see ourselves at today, where my generation may hopefully be the last to experience real terrorist violence in Northern Ireland.

So, I wouldn't mind an apology because you clearly made some base assumptions about me while I made none about you whatsoever despite being accused of it. I simply pointed out that you are incorrect.

You still haven't pointed out where I was incorrect...I also have a greater idea of what you speak than you can possibly imagine. You are the one who is utterly confused. I'll show you where right now...

Terrorism does not have to be directed towards civilians and that is only a fairly recent twist on the tactic.

If you direct force against an army, or a government, with the means and the will to fight back, it cannot be classified as terrorism simply because of those two things...means and will. In order for terrorism to work, one, or both, of those things must be missing...that's why the root of the word is terror.

Guerilla warfare refers only to a method of fighting, one that can be employed by any army, sovereign or otherwise. Terrorism is simply the use of violence to achieve a political aim by a non-sovereign organisation.

Guerilla warfare is a tactic employed by a small force of troops fighting a superior force with the object of harassing, and demoralizing, that larger force in order to get to a larger goal. Examples...Most of the Revolutionary war in the US was guerilla activity...most of the conflict in Vietnam was guerilla activity...and most of the failed invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union was guerilla activity. Now what do all three of those wars have in common?

As for the terrorism part...You need to prove that.