All kicking off in America

[andymc]

What prevents you from describing them as terrorists? Please don't suggest or insinuate that their actions were legitimate.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by andymc

What prevents you from describing them as terrorists? Please don't suggest or insinuate that their actions were legitimate.

please can you answer this question I posted earlier
At what point do you split a protestor from the type of terrorist that uses bombs?

In answer to your question, the way I perceive, view the person that waves a banner, throws rocks and fire bombs (although I think at this point protest may have become riot) to the person that plants bombs, fires weapons intent on killing many.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with you that the description of them as a terrorist is appropriate. To march along a street with a banner may well be legal in America I do not know, storming a building, attacking people and causing damage probably is not and I do not condone it. I do not condone rioting or looting and a protest can lead to both.

I think the only thing we disagree on is the description.


macafee2

[andymc]

What you're asking now doesn't make sense. These people are "the type of terrorist that uses bombs" because they did use bombs.

They were aggressors, as in they were the instigators of armed violence. They weren't just intent on killing, they did kill. They sought to overthrow the democratic process through the use of violence.

I gave you a dictionary definition of terrorist in a previous reply. Which part of it does not apply to these people?

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by andymc

What you're asking now doesn't make sense. These people are "the type of terrorist that uses bombs" because they did use bombs.

They were aggressors, as in they were the instigators of armed violence. They weren't just intent on killing, they did kill. They sought to overthrow the democratic process through the use of violence.

I gave you a dictionary definition of terrorist in a previous reply. Which part of it does not apply to these people?

Calm yourself down. Your anger is not allowing you to deal with my question, you refer to "these people" my question does not.
It asks about splitting a protestor from a terrorist and where you draw the line.

I appreciate you gave a definition and at no point did I challenge it.


macafee2

[planenut]

.................10.......9.........

[andymc]

This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by macafee2

At what point do you split a protestor from the type of terrorist that uses bombs?
A protestor that uses unlawful violence and intimidation conjures up a different image then terrorist that uses bombs and guns.

If the news had reported terrorist's had stormed I would have expected people with guns and bombs but reporting protestor's had stormed I believe conjures up a more realistic image.

macafee2

The part I have highlighted conveys the impression that you view the people who carried out yesterday's actions as protestors, rather than terrorists. If that is not the case, some clarification/correction is in order.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by andymc

This is what you wrote:



The part I have highlighted conveys the impression that you view the people who carried out yesterday's actions as protestors, rather than terrorists. If that is not the case, some clarification/correction is in order.

You have still not answered my question
Could you explain why?
No correction needed, I think their actions are more what I would consider to be those of a protestor may even go as far as rioter then I would a terrorist.

Some point in the future I will forget the event. If someone asks me do I recall the terrorists storming the congress, I will conjure up the wrong picture in my mind and possibly say no.
If I say yes then it will probably be down to this thread


If they ask me do I recall the protestors storming the congress I will conjure up the pictures we saw broadcast on the news and possibly say yes.



macafee2

[Simondi]

Come on chaps, settle down please

[andymc]

Originally Posted by macafee2

You have still not answered my question
Could you explain why?
No correction needed, I think their actions are more what I would consider to be those of a protestor may even go as far as rioter then I would a terrorist.

Some point in the future I will forget the event. If someone asks me do I recall the terrorists storming the congress, I will conjure up the wrong picture in my mind and possibly say no.
If I say yes then it will probably be down to this thread


If they ask me do I recall the protestors storming the congress I will conjure up the pictures we saw broadcast on the news and possibly say yes.



macafee2

Very well. I would differentiate between a protestor and a terrorist by pointing out that the actions of the former are generally passive and non-violent up to the point where violence is necessary in order to defend oneself, whereas the actions of the latter aggressively instigate violence and either threaten or harm the physical welfare of others in order to achieve a political aim or political power. Protestors usually wish to protect something or someone from harm, aggression or danger, whereas terrorists usually wish to endanger, dominate or destroy. What we saw in Washington on Wednesday were terrorists.

[clf]

Originally Posted by macafee2

You have still not answered my question
Could you explain why?
No correction needed, I think their actions are more what I would consider to be those of a protestor may even go as far as rioter then I would a terrorist.

Some point in the future I will forget the event. If someone asks me do I recall the terrorists storming the congress, I will conjure up the wrong picture in my mind and possibly say no.
If I say yes then it will probably be down to this thread


If they ask me do I recall the protestors storming the congress I will conjure up the pictures we saw broadcast on the news and possibly say yes.



macafee2

Do you remember the protesters blowing up the Grand Hotel in Brighton?

Genuine protesting involves no damage to property, nor mental or physical injury.

If you instill fear for personal safety then you are terrorising that person.

If you were present, would you imagine yourself to be fearful of the events occurring around you or not? I know I would!

Are you saying that if members of the PIRA stormed Downing Street or The House of Commons, gaining entry, disrupted the installation of a new Prime Minister, all whilst destroying documents, and other property, you would call them protesters or terrorists?

And for a bit of balance, how about terrorism or performance art? (a little background to the protester/performance artist/terrorist HERE)