is anyone who uses violence for politcal reasons a terrorist:? Watch

trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Churchill

Bin Laden

Bieber

Are they all terrorists or does the fact one was more acceptable than the other decide it.

Is it just the opinion of the people what classifies a terrorist or is there any objective conditions:?
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Of course not.

Wars are political and involve violence, does that make all the soldiers terrorists?

Also, Bieber? :lolwut: I know his music is bad, but I wouldn't class it as violence. Maybe aural torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by majmuh24)
Of course not.

Wars are political and involve violence, does that make all the soldiers terrorists?

Also, Bieber? :lolwut: I know his music is bad, but I wouldn't class it as violence. Maybe aural torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile
well whats the difference between the al-qaeda and the us army...
what is the difference...
if you ask either side theyd call each other terrorists...


haha bieber actually aint so bad imo.
0
reply
Bill_Gates
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Everyone is a terrorist OP we only care about ourselves. Happy?
0
reply
ikilledosama
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
One man's terrorist is another man's hero.
2
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by trustmeimlying1)
well whats the difference between the al-qaeda and the us army...
what is the difference...
if you ask either side theyd call each other terrorists...


haha bieber actually aint so bad imo.
Nothing. It all depends on your point of view.

Yes he is.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by majmuh24)
Nothing. It all depends on your point of view.

Yes he is.

Posted from TSR Mobile
aww bit unfair really...being so strict on terrorism rather than trying to sort out differences...ah well.
0
reply
trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by ikilledosama)
One man's terrorist is another man's hero.
summed it up perfectly.
thanks I thought maybe id got it wrong..
1
reply
trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Bill_Gates)
Everyone is a terrorist OP we only care about ourselves. Happy?
hmmm..
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by trustmeimlying1)
Churchill

Bin Laden

Bieber

Are they all terrorists or does the fact one was more acceptable than the other decide it.

Is it just the opinion of the people what classifies a terrorist or is there any objective conditions:?
Churchill fought against fascism. He was a freedom fighter.

Bin Laden fought for religious totalitarianism. He was a fighter against freedom.

That is the difference.
0
reply
Gjaykay
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by trustmeimlying1)
Churchill

Bin Laden

Bieber

Are they all terrorists or does the fact one was more acceptable than the other decide it.

Is it just the opinion of the people what classifies a terrorist or is there any objective conditions:?
Terrorist
ˈtɛrərɪst/Submit
noun
1. a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/Submit
noun
1.
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

By definition Churchil wasn't a terrorist. Obviously Beiber isn't either.
People like Malcolm X and Osama Bin Laden are terrorists.
0
reply
trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by felamaslen)
Churchill fought against fascism. He was a freedom fighter.

Bin Laden fought for religious totalitarianism. He was a fighter against freedom.

That is the difference.
I know so little on Bin Laden but didnt both of them just want control of their people...opinions on how they wouldve ruled it is perhaps different..

many say the original irish peace fighters weren't terrorists for example..

but the IRA..they fought for rights for the mainly irish people of northern ireland...why is that classified as terrorism:?
0
reply
ikilledosama
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by felamaslen)
Churchill fought against fascism. He was a freedom fighter.

Bin Laden fought for religious totalitarianism. He was a fighter against freedom.

That is the difference.
sorry? Churchill far from 'fought fascism'; he fought for the furtherance of British colonial agenda, get your facts right.
0
reply
Bill_Gates
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by ikilledosama)
sorry? Churchill far from 'fought fascism'; he fought for the furtherance of British colonial agenda, get your facts right.
I second this too.
1
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
No. Only those who lost the fight.
0
reply
trustmeimlying1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Gjaykay)
Terrorist
ˈtɛrərɪst/Submit
noun
1. a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/Submit
noun
1.
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

By definition Churchil wasn't a terrorist. Obviously Beiber isn't either.
People like Malcolm X and Osama Bin Laden are terrorists.
okay..correct me if Im reading this wrong..

what makes an act official or authorized is clear a government operation rather than some rebels yes?

so what the russia government is now doing with their army invading ukraine..thats not terrorism:?
0
reply
ikilledosama
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Gjaykay)
terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/Submit
noun
1.
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

By definition Churchil wasn't a terrorist. Obviously Beiber isn't either.
People like Malcolm X and Osama Bin Laden are terrorists.
LMFAO who reserves the right to authorise the use of violence? when is it 'official' that using violence is okay? :rolleyes:
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by trustmeimlying1)
well whats the difference between the al-qaeda and the us army...
what is the difference...
if you ask either side theyd call each other terrorists...
The US army has better weapons.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by majmuh24)
Of course not.

Wars are political and involve violence, does that make all the soldiers terrorists?

Also, Bieber? :lolwut: I know his music is bad, but I wouldn't class it as violence. Maybe aural torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Bieber threw eggs to a house or something.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
It's the way they use violence that matters [at a technical level].
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (23)
6.74%
They might tell the bully (33)
9.68%
I don't think they'd understand (52)
15.25%
It might lead to more bullying (131)
38.42%
There's nothing they could do (102)
29.91%

Watched Threads

View All