The official all things terrorism thread

Asked?

 

"I do not just expect to be released, but I also expect an eventual Nobel Peace Prize."

 

the grooming centre for all the worlds terrorists mate..

bethnal green academy...it's the hub..

 

Would never have got that one.

 

Something that did catch my eye on news reports was in regards to Bloody Sunday. The British media called them soldiers and reports would highlight arguments such as what about the 'terrorists' when countering arguing in favour of the 'soldiers' defence. I suppose my question around that is when does a soldier become a terrorist? (no suggestions on my part, genuine question).

 

in place of arsed, southern mate (South-East).

 

I guess the difference is a soldier follows orders. But sometimes things break down, and then when it does, it's about survival..

You do what you must to guarantee your and your mates survival.

The rest, well sorry, **** happens.

 

Out of interest, I just did a google search on the definition of 'terrorism' it comes up with this;

terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

 

Never having served my thought would be..

A terrorist goes into a situation wanting to kill and often expecting to die
.
A soldier goes into a situation hoping to protect people and keep the peace whilst doing their best to survive.

When the **** hits the fan all humans react in different ways and until we are in the middle of it we can only hope/imagine that we will be perfect in every case.

 

think the key word there is political. now every ****ing thing is labelled terrorism, what a load of **** man.

just proves how easy everyone becomes mugs.

 

No one is perfect mate, you make decisions in a blink of an eye.

Basic rule is 'ii and my mates live'.

 

Surely NI is political though, actually probably a lot more political than most incidents. The IRA's fight as i understood it was against the British Government - that makes it political.

You chose to ignore the first part of the sentence...the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians - surely that is what happened in some people's eyes?

 

This is correct, the NZ attack fits the description.
There are many "lone wolf" terrorists that get put down as nut jobs because they don't have a network to fall back on/ be linked to but in the end they are following an ideology.

 

The IRA were political. Absolutely.

Whether the soldier had a political goal in mind or just opened fire in anger, is up for debate.

 

So what are you saying? Just go check out the figures on how many dead, on both sides, by caths and probs, in the name of peace.

Then chuck in the army deaths, and those killed. Once you've done that, get back to me with a decent arguement ffs

 

Well, I think it's about statehood, nations can sponsor terrorism, but not be terrorists themselves; and pay, terrorists are 'volunteers'.

 

Agreed, but the definition BRB has found also applies equally to states. So it can be an individual or a government or regime.

 

I posted that because this is the NZ thread and has suddenly merged with the "sunday bloody sunday" thread.
I hate thread cross overs

 

So you get asked a question and as per go off in to one. If you don't like the question stop debating with me and stop taking it so personally.

As i said and i gave you the definition, i asked when does a soldier become a terrorist, that's the decent argument you just don't like to read, because it doesn't pamper to some disagreement you are having with yourself in your own head.

 

A soldier is a volunteer, but what ever you fooking do, don't let Comm read this