It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When does revolution become terrorism?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
When does the line between a revolution and terrorism get crossed? Is there even a distinction? Suppose fellow Americans began an armed revolution against the US Government. Are they automatically terrorists? Who makes such distinctions? I would guess it depends on who wins the battle. What rights would these revolutionaires have?




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
When you fly planes into the twin towers.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I am not talking about any act in particular although I appreciate your response Boston. I am talking about citizens declaring war on the government.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Well you can use the attack in Oklahoma as example of attacking the U.S. govt. but the people didn't like it, so its called terrorism.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
As soon as they believe your a threat, or you have anything that the public might be willing to entertain..

you'll be labeled a terrorist.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
What if it was military bases being attacked? Or Government buildings not at risk of civilian fatalities (if there are such buildings)? Would it be more acceptable if the revolution group made public statements of their intentions to overthrow the government? I agree that the Oklahoma bombings were acts of terrorism.

I guess the suicide bombers in Iraq are a similiar comparison to what I am talking about. If they are focusing their attacks on US troops, who they see as an occupier, are they terrorists or part of an armed uprising? It seems like a very blurred line to me.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by ninthaxis]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
When you win you’re a revolutionary, and when you lose you’re a terrorist.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Terrorists are people with weapons in their homes.

www.globalsecurity.org...


Earlier in the day, Soldiers from A Battery, 1st Squadron, 75th Cavalry Regiment detained two terrorists after conducting a search of their home. When the Soldiers searched the suspected terrorists’ house, they found two AK-47 assault rifles with loaded magazines and a 12-gauge shotgun.


If the 'suspected' terrorists were not detained until after the home was searched, that would apparently mean that the contents of the home as listed above were what defined them as terrorists, since the article goes on to mention two more terrorists being captured, meaning that the original two were more than merely 'suspected' terrorists.

So, according to this specific source, suspected terrorists = terrorists, suspected triggermen = terrorists and people with AK-47s = terrorists.

To me, this is either an overly liberal use of the t-word, or an overly simplified article that leaves out a significant amount of pertinent data.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I think "terrorism" is being too liberally applied these days. Kids causing fights at school are tagged with terrorism. Basically anything that insights any sort of fear can be labeled terrorism by its current usage. I think that is wrong. I do not know where to draw the line, but before 9/11 I dont remember hearing much about terrorists at all. Of course I was in high school then so maybe I was just oblivious to it all.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
When you win you’re a revolutionary, and when you lose you’re a terrorist.


That pretty much says it. Perception is reality, and history. Any revolutionary act would be seen as terrorism by the government. The terms only change when you win.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
So from this point on in the writing of history books, a failed revolution will be described as a series of terrorists attacks, and the only revolutions will be those that are successful. I wish it were possible for history to be an unbiased account instead of a memorial for the victors.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
So from this point on in the writing of history books, a failed revolution will be described as a series of terrorists attacks, and the only revolutions will be those that are successful. I wish it were possible for history to be an unbiased account instead of a memorial for the victors.


That kinda reminds me of the Dark elf series written about the houses who fail to defeat another house.. Those who know the stories will know just what I mean..
And in any game you play, or story you read.. The empire always make the heros out to be the bad guys to the public.
The Rebels in Starwars are the terroists.. think about it for a bit.. Its easy to understand really...



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
So let me pose another question then. What exactly defines terrorism? A gang protecting its turf? School yard bullies picking on smaller students? At what point do we say that the terrorism sticker is unwarranted for the circumstances? I propose defining terrorism as an attack against a country's civilians by a group not sanctioned by a specific country. What are your opinions?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The line is crossed when women, children, or civilians are targeted. if the revolutionists bomb a government target and have reason to believe there are no civilians inside then they are still revolutionists, even if one or two civilians get injured or even killed... I'm not saying killing innocent civilians is good, just that its almost impossible to be 100% sure there aren't any nearby, and while safeguarding civilians is important, the revolution, which could better the lives of everyone in the country if it succeeds, is slightly more important...

Terrorism, imo, is defined as acts of malicious violence with no possible constructive/positive result that seriously endanger or take the lives of civilians...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
ninthaxis- In the case of Iraq attacking occupying troops those of America and my country the UK is clearly a legitamate act. I'm not happy when a soldier dies, but it is a conflict. Where as that attack in Northern Iraq the other day is clearly an act of terrorisim.

And when it comes to defining terrorisim, I see the Israli government for their treatment of the Palastinians as terrorists as well as the U.S and the U.K for the invasion of Iraq and deaths of civilians in Afghanistan as well as those who attacked the twin towers and bombed London and Madrid. Any act that results in 'terror' amonsgt people or leads to injury, death, damage of property is terrorisim. There really no good guys in this just sides on which you are on.


[edit on 17-8-2007 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
And when it comes to defining terrorisim, I see the Israli government for their treatment of the Palastinians as terrorists as well as the U.S and the U.K for the invasion of Iraq and deaths of civilians in Afghanistan as well as those who attacked the twin towers and bombed London and Madrid. Any act that results in 'terror' amonsgt people or leads to injury, death, damage of property is terrorisim. There really no good guys in this just sides on which you are on.
[edit on 17-8-2007 by Peruvianmonk]


Would the treatment of Palestinians be considered terrorism as well? I do not agree that the invasion of Iraq by the US is terrorism. I think it was wrong to do so, but I think a sovereign nation attacking another sovereign nation cannot be labeled terrorism. I think imperialism is a more appropriate title. The difference is, I think, that terrorism attempt is just to kill/cause terror while in the Iraq case the motivation was to install a different leader. Again, I do not agree with this reason to invade a country but the ramifications of your theory is that those troops become terrorists. I could not call these soldiers being forced to fight in Iraq terrorists without feelings of guilt and embarrassment for doing so.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
When you win you’re a revolutionary, and when you lose you’re a terrorist.


Don't know if that can be easily applied right now since we designate Al Qaeda as terrorists and we haven't won yet. Other terrorist groups are still alive and have been for decades and are considered terrorists. Tamil Tigers, ETA, IRA, etc.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Most ALL acts of 'terrorism ' we have seen in the last 30 years has been GOVERNMENT sponsored. Take the bombings in the 80's by the Red Brigades in Italy; recently the PROOF has been shown that all those events were done by right wing intelligence services, black ops guys, to make the other side look bad, to blame them for the terror and get the world hating them. this is standard operating procedure.

The Gladio trials show the truth: The USA and its allies are willing to kill and murder in order to advance their goals , and it has always been this way. When the Zionists were bombing targets and killing the innocent, they were called terrorists by everyone ( except the Zionists ), and now they are cale heeroes and revolutoinaries by the Isrealis for acts that helped them get a homeland going.

There have been very FEW acts of real terrorism in this world ; MOST were false flag jobs meant to demonize the LEFT while giving power and influence to the RIGHT.Old tricks. The intelligence services run the bad guys around. using them to set things up, for political purposes and we only hear about the truth many decades later, if ever. Look how long it took to get the FACT of the Iran/Contra illegalities made known, and still, Ollie North, the coc aine king of the 80's, is walking around free and so are his bosses that were dirty as hell.

Terror to me is when civilians are involved; I lose no sleep hearing about our invading troops being targeted by the people over there: WE are the terrorists in this world right now, the worst. We kill hundreds of thousands, millions if need be, and we call ourselves righteous killers. Some band of whackos kills a few somewhere and the headlines scream about the terror!! What hogwash. we do NOT have any high ground here; Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 or anything else, and we are the guilty ones for allowing the mad PNAC crowd to get us into a phony war on terror so the riches can be divided by the cronies of the bigshots and the rights we love can be done away with.

The 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by elements of the USA and others to promote the agenda that we are seeing 8unfold right now;taking other nations by force for their oil and stratecig positions, etc., using terror against our own citizens in many ways, ridding the law opf all protections,..it is sick that most Americans cannot see the obvious and still cling to a notion that Bush is really an OK guy, if a little stupid.

But the Bush gang are traitors, criminals, murderers, liars and worse. they are the first openly hostile regime to the Constitution and the law. Bush Sr. has a grand plan for a police state with total control of civilian populations and the wealth concentrated on the top 5%, just like now. We are only ONE executive order away from total bondage and yet the people slumber.Bush is the worst terrorist in the history of this nation and will be remembered as the man who sold us out, gave us away, ruined the Constitution, all at the same time that our representatives sat by and did nothing to stop it.

Politicians are terrible, awful people these days. They ALL are unwilling to take a stand and say what the rest of us know already: The Bush gang is out of control and the weak sister senators are too scared to be seen as ' weak on terror ' to do anything at all. Just like the DRUG WAR, the failed crap we see decade after decade; same thing. The terror war is the same, endless money and lives wasted on a failed and useless policy, only meant to instill more repressive laws on us and to take more and more trillions of our dollars and waste them.

this nation is sick, and on the point of change that cannot be undone. The Bush regime is the most dangerous terrorist gang on earth right now, capable of more damage than anyone else. They are immoral and terible human beings ( if Dick Cheney can be called human at all ), and deserve a trail and execution for their many terrible crimes against humanity.

But the American people are too weak, too lazy, too uneducated as to the truth, too easily led away from real issues to care..we are seeing our nation ruined right in front of us and yet we still wave the flag and shout how great we are while the rest of the world watches amazed as we go downhill. We are about to be destroyed as a nation and that is exactly what the Bushies want; it is part of the plan for global govt. and the new world order that Bush Sr. loves so much.

WE are the worst nation on earth as far as danger to others goes, thats a fact. No other major nation reaches out all over the world to destroy others for no good reason and gets away with it simply be repeating lies: WMD's? Where are they? All of the lies told before the invasions of innocent lands were calculated to deceive and they did so. The cover ups are deep and all over the place.

Ity sickens the sound mind to see us like this; we are the BAD guys now peole. Not the supposed arabs, but US!! Anyone who believes that the Bush cabal is actually looking out for America need to have their heads examined. the proof is massive, the evidence overwhelming, if only one cares.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join