That's not much different from anything else: mass media and governments influence them. They want to portray themselves as the good guys, while the bad guys are portrayed as terrorists. Ignorance is what causes illogical, distorted views. No, I just defined terrorism in a clear, easy way. Anything else is just postmodernistic crap used by those who want to distort clarity to futher their agenda and to achieve their goals. You can either let ignorance take precedence and let political parties define things for you, or your can use logic and reason, and things speak for themselves. This Professor Chesney's definition is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. The flaw lies in the inclusion of the word "unlawful". This allows any government to commit acts of terrorism as long as it's in accordance with "the law", which history has proved over and over again is not always right and true.
The prof meant the fight that lasted up until the 20s, I think. Which, apparently, spanned for several hundreds years
I think over that 800 year span there were about 9 uprisings of any worth but were crushed often within weeks and sometimes days. What people forget is the British were a formidable foe with hundreds of thousands of well trained soldiers with arsenals unmatched anywhere in the world. At one point their empire spanned all continents and included of 50% of the world's land mass. They had more soldiers in fact than we had citizens. 1922 War of Independence however was won through guerrilla warfare, some here may say terrorism - individual killings of top British officials, some of them unarmed at the time; in the bath, on the pot, eating dinner - we finally learned how to fight when the odds were heaped against us. The British had just returned victorious from WW1 and still pretty much gun crazy - a short trip across the Irish Sea would have been dessert after their continental main course. After the short guerrilla war which was pretty much tit for tat on both sides we had the choice - 26 counties or none. Michael Collins was sent to London to talk to Lloyd George, some would say he was stitched up by Eamon DeValera, but Collins came back after signing the treaty which left 6 counties in the hands of Britain - still dividing and conquering. Michael Collins was called a terrorist by the British because he devised the tactical war on individuals. When faced with taking on the might of the British Army with handfuls of men, some armed only with shovels, would you call him a rebel, a freedom fighter or a terrorist? I think the word terrorist has been twisted to suit Bush and CNN to demonise just about anyone they don't like or to instil fear into there own people for whatever monetary spoils they can get their hands on.
I'm sorry, but it's really not that simple. Some of the issues with defining terrorism include differentiating between terrorism and other political violence and between government terrorism and resistance terrorism. Take a look at the Wikipedia page titled "Definitions of terrorism," and you'll see the various problems with defining terrorism. I think he meant international law.
Like I said, the definition of the word itself, that is, the notion it is meant to represent, is clear. Differentiating terrorism and political violence isn't difficult. Just compare the action in question with the definition of the word itself. If violence or the threat of violence is used systematically to inflict terror for political or ideological purposes, then it is terrorism. If you want to differentiate between government terrorism and resistance terrorism, call it government terrorism and resistance terrorism, respectively. I just said that any attempt to interpret and redefine the meaning of the word is just to further one's own agenda. Governments are the first to abuse the term, and they work to have the legal system adapt their own interpretation to give it a "legal" meaning, and so all these different definitions and interpretations arise and causes all sorts of problems. Governments are allowed to do acts of terrorism because they made it so that those actions won't be considered as such by their legal system and by those they govern. This is also why you have that those one one side call it terrorism while those on the other side do not.
The problem is in the writing of the current narrative or the writing of history, to differentiate one kind of killing and massive destruction as "terrorism" and another that has the same result as "legitimate warfare" can be rather arbitrary if one looks at the results. Yes, I get it, terrorism intends to purposefully scare the populace to pressure their leaders to change. But how is war any different? If you are the superior military power and you are writing the history, or you have the microphone and you are defining the narrative, then you simply call what you do warfare and what the enemy does, terrorism. But the lines very much blur and are only morally different from the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps if you could present to me an example where such problematics are present, then I could explain myself further through that example? As a mathematician, I've come to adopt the ideology I feel is most logically consistent, the easiest to define (rigorously), with as few ambiguities as possible, and the one that displays the highest amount of tolerance to other ideologies. The axioms of that ideology are three simple ones: 1) Everyone is entitled to their own individual inalienable freedom and property (like their own body), 2) that this freedom should always be respected unless it infringes on someone else's freedoms, and 3) that the principle of non-aggression should be adhered to. Form this, there cannot be that much moral ambiguity about an act of terrorism, whereas other ideologies unfortunately make far easier leeway for such acts through ambiguous concepts like "for the greater good" or "for freedom and peace", and so on. I acknowledge that when morality comes into play, problems certainly arise, and I acknowledge that most people do not share my ideologies, but I still feel there is a distinct difference between what an act is, and what an act is made out to be. Just because a government calls their warfare legitimate does not automatically exclude it from being terrorism. If you are the superpower and you are writing history, and you claim that what you did was not an act of terrorism when it, by definition, was, then you are lying.
Yup. Sorry, couldn't resist. You're quite right, though. The Romans wrote their history at the time (or rather, a few years later) while the Germans wrote their's during the era of romanticism some centuries later. I guess this thread has come full circle, and ultimately this thread is not even about plot or setting but about the fundamentals of understanding history and current politics. Each side will always try to portray itself as the "good" side and the opposing side as the "bad" side. In order to do so, lies are told, facts are skewed and evidence is falsified or destroyed. In any dispute in the world, you will find, at the end of the day, that there were faults on both sides. Terrorism is no exception. The definition given at the start of the thread is ample, but the terrorists will rarely agree themselves that they are terrorists. It's all a point of view thing.
Couldn't you say, as well, that terrorists don't mind the label? It might as well be branding them a hero, depending on their family or cultural circle. As for the initial thread post: A character with true terrorist intent must be one without convictions, or shame. A terrorist is an individual who lies to themselves, regardless of what they tell others. Any other type of person should not be labeled terrorist, or considered a viable character for this story. Acts of terror are not limited to physical violence or destruction, and while I agree it is a matter of the point of view, there are far fewer actual terrorists in this world than those labeled as such. Your character must be inherently evil, without fail.
