XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism   
   From: callasberrGANSPAM@tinet.ie   
      
   Howard9 wrote:   
   > In article <3souf9Fovh8qU1@individual.net>, callasberrGANSPAM@tinet.ie   
   > says...   
   >>   
   >>> then I support whatever violence, anywhere and   
   >>> anytime, that it takes to liberate people from captivity, oppression   
   >>> and non-democratic regimes.   
   >>   
   >>  Wow ! You cannot possibly realise how many "terrorist" organisations   
   >> share this view !   
   >>   
   > Their sharing of that view is meaningless.  Their actions and   
   > justification are.   
      
   Perhaps someone somewhere can decipher this; I can't.   
      
   >>> Terrorism is by definition not aimed at   
   >>> liberation as it is in it's very nature intended to instill terror   
   >>> among the populous.   
   >>   
   >>  I don't know who defined terrorism that way, or if it is really a   
   >> generally accepted definition, but if it is, then your heroes the WW2   
   >> Allies were terrorists.   
   >   
   > I didn't define terrorism, I only referred to one patently obvious   
   > element in any such definition.   
   > And your reference to the Allies as being 'my' heroes infers that they   
   > were not yours.. which makes one wonder which side the war were your   
   > heroes....   
      
   Why do I have to have had heroes in WW2 ?   
      
   > War includes, by it's very nature, the terrorising of the enemy. That   
   > doesn't make it terrorism, except in a very infantile literal sense.   
      
   Agreed, but I wasn't being literally infantile.   
      
   > Maybe you'll be replying to this before Xmas... so I better keep a   
   > copy...   
   >   
   > LOL   
      
   Touche, but I have a life some of the time   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)