And I'll respectfully call you a murderer. You don't have the authority to sentence anyone to death if that even should be the course of action taken. Just call the police, okay?
Many if not most terrorist and shooters do feel marginalized, disrespected, angry at those they blame for it. They tend to feel like other methods haven’t worked, won’t work, or are unavailable to them- so they use violence to be heard. And yes, many from the founders of America to popular historical “good guys” were technically terrorists at the time. The civilian resistance against the Nazi’s were terrorists by and large. However, this is just a way to show terrorist that violence works, gets attention and sympathy to their cause; and show future generations that if they feel negatively the easiest way to get recognition is violence. The spirit of American patriotism leans terrorist. The founding fathers laid down the ideal and the legal framework for the civic duty of every American to overthrow any domestic government of it were to “go too far.” But these are complex ideas for a child, and I can’t agree with the implementation of this even if you can’t fight hate with hate.
civilian resistance against the Nazi’s were terrorists (c) actually, no. Terrorism is form of direct intimidation of civilians. Resistance is form of protection. By definition. Partisanship is form of armed resistance, in most cases, on territory occupied by invaders.
Terrorism is a poorly defined concept and requires very few criteria to be met- chiefly the use and threat of force as a form of coercion. By its nature WW2 was what is known as a “total war” and military operations and living were often intermixed with civilians. Further, many resistance movements targeted “collaborators” (the people of an occupied territory who assist or enable the occupier in some way) and industries using “collaborators” or captives as labor- which qualify as civilians. Further- most all territory on earth is occupied by invaders at some point, so that hardly serves to distinguish the act from other types of war or resistance. Like most definitions of terrorism- yours is lacking. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter doesn’t hinge on who writes a dictionary, but on who writes the history books. Any act of armed aggression can be said to be direct intimidation of civilians. Your definition would label most police forces as terrorists.
We can build any complex theories about words definitions =) but words have original direct etymological meaning.
Terror is "horror" and originally defines act of intimidation.
Resistance is counter action. Yes, the word has too wide definition. But not every resistance is terror. In most cases resistance has different aim than terror.
Words and meanings yes. So let us use your definitions- even if they are not the definitions that might be applied in official use. A resistance fighter is resisting what, through what means? A terrorist is doing what, for what purpose? The two things are not morally exclusive. A resistance fighter can be a terrorist and vice versa. Organized governments with standing armies can carry out terror attacks as well as “police actions,” “acts of war,” and so on. Most terrorists aren’t the joker- causing terror because it makes them giddy. They have different goals too. Often the removal of a foreign power of influence from their soil. By your definition the Taliban or Isis are not terrorist organizations but resistance fighters who’s primary goal isn’t terror, but to remove an occupying military force from their land and restore control to what they see as a legitimate successor regime.
No, when i wrote about gaol i mean "goal of terror as act". Terrorism is only method of impact to make opponent to do actions through fear (like: "see how i can with your peacefull citizens", it's "a show") (by the way, citizens can be terrorists too). Resistance is state that can use many of methods. These are incomparable things.
Terrorism isn’t about goals. The goal is irrelevant. Terror is a method. In this world when we seek to compel another person to do something we have methods to use to do that. Force is a primary method. The authority of most entities comes from force. Some people are just “good” in nature and without laws would intuitively obey most law. Most people find the law often in the way of what they want or the simplest way to get it, yet most people follow the law. Why? Fear. They are afraid of the consequences and afraid of failure. People don’t rob Fort Knox daily because people know that your chances of success are very slim- you’ll be met by superior force, and if you succeed you will likely be met with still superior force, and this will be imprisoned or killed. The law works on fear. Police, security, anything but the honor system or a system which has no punishment for “bad” behavior and instead rewards good- works on fear. So all things can use many methods. All governments and...
... known societies use some form of fear to compel people. So fear is not the exclusive right of terrorism. Resistance is merely a concept. You can resist in many ways. Passive resistance is a thing. You do nothing. Nothing that would make your opponent happy, and through attrition you either die or win if your will is stronger. Resistance does not require violence. If you are resisting you choose HOW to resist, and one method you can use to resist is terrorism. By your definition- how would you classify the “Foundig Fathers” of America? We’re they terrorists or resistance fighters, and why do you believe that? This would be a good example of my point and a chance to try and apply your logic to a specific case with known details.
There is thin line: terrorism used for government destabilization factor by intimidiation civilians. Targets of terr. acts: any not armed not soldiers. When you kill minister/senator/president/citizens you are terrorist. By definition. When you fire from gun... you are shooter.
I apologize as I think there may be a language barrier with English? The argument doesn’t go anywhere. Yes- a person who shoots is accurately described as a “shooter,” however a “shooter” can be a police officer shooting a dangerous criminal, a soldier shooting an enemy, an assasin shooting a diplomat, a student shooting up a school, or a terrorist shooting up a crowded venue. As in the “resistance” example- a shooter can be a terrorist, a terrorist can be a shooter. The 2 can exist in one place but are not related. There is NO part of the definition of terrorism that requires the intimidation of civilians- terrorism can be carried out against military targets as well. More over, military operations often target non armed combatants as well- as do intelligence operations. Are those by your definition terrorists, or are they terrorist activities carried out by a nation? You said the goal of a terrorist is terror, but shooting an official makes one a terrorist...
... so then what about a hired assassin or mercenary- theor goal is not terror. It is money. Or what if a fanatic who doesn’t want to cause terror or change but just hates one guy who happens to be a public official? If you kill your neighbor because you hate him- isn’t that just murder? Why would it suddenly become terrorism when you hate someone who happens to be a public figure? As I said initially- and we continue to prove- “terrorism” doesn’t not have a compact and self enclosed catch all definition. Who and what terrorism is are subjective- they change based on perspective. You’ve given no criteria or definition for terrorism which we cannot apply to routine operation of legitimate interests, and which can be applied universally to accepted examples of terrorism.
Terror is "horror" and originally defines act of intimidation.
Resistance is counter action. Yes, the word has too wide definition. But not every resistance is terror. In most cases resistance has different aim than terror.