would this be a correct distinction

[Amit]

to make between a terrorist and a revolutionary

a revolutionary fights against a non-democratic government

a terrorist fights against a democratic government

if yes, then wouldn't it imply that there simply isn't any system of governance better than democracy

which to me seems to be a rather oppressive and not very democratic idea

if no, then what seperates a revolutionary from a terrorist

[Amit]

Isn't a better distinction that a terrorist intentionally targets non-governmental civilians with the intention of gaining a political victory from their actions, whereas a revolutionary targets the infrastructure of government and/or a military target? Also I'd add that a revolutionary has to be from the nation that he's attacking, whereas a terrorist can be (i.e Tim McVeigh), but also can be from another country.

if so, then there are plenty of examples of terrorists targeting military/governmental infrastructure and revolutionaries targeting non-governmental civilians

:-(

[Rimbaudian]

A terrorist is a revolutionary you oppose...

[Amit]

or maybe a terrorist is a revolutionary fighting a government which is like yours

or a revolutionary is a terrorist fighting a government which is not like yours

[Rimbaudian]

or maybe a terrorist is a revolutionary fighting a government which is like yours

or a revolutionary is a terrorist fighting a government which is not like yours

That is what I was implying, yes. I believe you have the right idea.

[Der Übermensch]

A revolutionary is someone in revolt against the legitimate government under which he obstentiably lives.
A terrorist is a non-state entity who uses terror and cohersion against non-military targets in order to achieve a goal.

[Amit]

but there's a difference between living in a place and supporting the government that governs that place

A revolutionary is someone in revolt against the legitimate government under which he obstentiably lives.
A terrorist is a non-state entity who uses terror and cohersion against non-military targets in order to achieve a goal.

so revolutionaries do not use terror or coercion to achieve their goals against the legitimate government under which he lives?

it seems strange that they would be revolting against a legitimate government as well :-\

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

if so, then there are plenty of examples of terrorists targeting military/governmental infrastructure and revolutionaries targeting non-governmental civilians

:-(

not if you use med's definitions


someone can be both you know

[italic zero]

I think there's overlap.

[Zesty Mordant]

A terrorist is that who is brown.

/thread





but really, I think Med's definition is the closest. I would think that the definitions are really more based upon which side one is on. (that is, if you support the actions/see them as positive than the individual is revolutionary, and vice-versa)

And I think a lot of it has been muddled post-9/11, and in that sense I'm not sure of the democratic thing. Before 9/11 Chechen rebels were generally considered by Moscow to be known as "freedom fighters" (kind of close to revolutionary). After 9/11 they suddenly become "terrorists". And Russia is a "democracy" (ie. not really democratic)

[pedro durruti]

but there's a difference between living in a place and supporting the government that governs that place



so revolutionaries do not use terror or coercion to achieve their goals against the legitimate government under which he lives?

it seems strange that they would be revolting against a legitimate government as well :-\
A revolutionary can use terrorism as a means to achieving their goal. Legitimate as in the established government, not correct in the eyes of the revolutionary.

[Rimbaudian]

Somebody please define these terms definitions for our discussion.
Revolutionary

Terrorist

Legitimate Government


Also Zesty, what you're describing is a lot closer to what I was describing than what Med was.

[pedro durruti]

Terrorism can be reactionary though.

[Rimbaudian]

A lot of terrorism is reactionary though.

A lot is left-wing too though..

[pedro durruti]

Yes, there is left-wing terrorism. But if someone is a revolutionary that doesn't mean they are a terrorist, although their opponents may falsely brand them as one. And a terrorist is someone who carries out acts of terrorism to achieve a specific agenda which isn't always revolutionary.

[Der Übermensch]

so revolutionaries do not use terror or coercion to achieve their goals against the legitimate government under which he lives?

it seems strange that they would be revolting against a legitimate government as well :-\
Revolutionaries can be terrorists, its not mutually exlusive...

And by legitimate I mean recognized by other governments; it has nothing to do with whether it is a popular/elected/ethical government.

[Akira]

A terrorists can be a revolutionary. A terrorist targets civilians.

[Rimbaudian]

Yes, there is left-wing terrorism. But if someone is a revolutionary that doesn't mean they are a terrorist, although their opponents may falsely brand them as one. And a terrorist is someone who carries out acts of terrorism to achieve a specific agenda which isn't always revolutionary.

I can't argue this until you tell me how you define revolutionary.

[pedro durruti]

Someone seeking drastic social or political change

[The Digital Pimp]

I take it you guys haven't heard of subjectivity before.

[italic zero]

this a perfectly reasonable subject for an objective definition

[The Digital Pimp]

Okay.

Terrorists - the guys wearing turbans and shaking AKs in the desert. There, I said it, now we can all go home.

[Akira]

I take it you guys haven't heard of subjectivity before.

There is nothing subjective about the term "terrorism". Revolutionary maybe, but that's a very broad term.

[Amit]

A terrorists can be a revolutionary. A terrorist targets civilians.

it was terrorists who targeted the USS cole though

[Rimbaudian]

Someone seeking drastic social or political change
I seek drastic social and political change, therefore I am a revolutionary?

[HaVIC5]

Terrorism in the narrow sense can be defined as the (somewhat) arbitrary targeting of civilians in order to inflict terror upon a greater population and to influence political change. You can be a revolutionary or a "terrorist" these days and not engage in this sort of terrorism because these days terrorism has a politicized definition that doesn't reflect the actual nature of the act.

[Give me Beer]

I think the targetting of civilians in order to create a climate of fear that will lead to social or political change would be more in the line of a terrorist organization.

Democratic government or not, that doesn't have much of anything to do with it. For example, the Mexican government is a democratically elected one, yet nobody would stoop to calling the Zapatistas terrorists. They're a revolutionary movement. They do not target civilians, even if they propose armed insurrection (which they ended unilaterally to spare the civilian population) to fight against the oppression of the Mexican government against the Native populations of the Chiapas.

[-1up!-]

I'll quote my International Relations textbook, maybe it can stir up some discussion.

My textbook does not make a clear distinction between a revolutionary individual and a terrorist individual. Rather it classes "revolutionary war" as a type of civil war and "terrorism" as a war strategy. Here goes.

Revolutionary war: Armed insurrection lead by a party or organization, with the support of a (more or less) significant part of the population, having as objective to take power and radical transformation of the political and/or economic order.

Terrorism (non-conventional war strategy): Any violent action which seeks to defeat the enemy, not by targeting its means of action (soldiers, weapons, the conventional targets in war) but by trying to produce an effect of terror which acts directly on the will to pursue the conflict. Contrary to conventional war tactics, the terrorist strategy tries to avoid the long, tiresome and uncertain action of trying to destroy or neutralize enemy forces, by placing the enemy in a demoralized state which is hoped to lead to capitulate.

The two concepts overlap. Revolutionary armies may very well resort to terrorism to reach their objectives.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

A terrorist is someone who uses the tactic of terrorism

Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians by non-governmental entities in order to instill fear or "terror" in the general populace

A revolutionary is someone engaged in a revolution


They are not mutually exclusive

[pedro durruti]

I seek drastic social and political change, therefore I am a revolutionary?
Well, as long as you wish to change the social and political structures through revolution.. but that's implied in the name. You don't have to be engaged in a revolution in order to be a revolutionary, either.

[shaqadelic]

A terrorist is someone who uses the tactic of terrorism

Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians by non-governmental entities in order to instill fear or "terror" in the general populace

A revolutionary is someone engaged in a revolution


They are not mutually exclusive

This is good definition..

[griftadan]

no, a terrorist is just a revolutionary that prefers some kind of tactical strategy.

[Amit]

tactical and strategy

interesting combination of words

[Der Übermensch]

a terrorist doesn't have to be a revolutionary though. He could be a reactionary.

[MegaPhony]

Revolutionaries do something for an overall positive change.
Terrorists do something for an overall negative change.

Both actions change the future, as well positive/negative is dependent on your perspective. Whereas revolutionaries to us, maybe be terrorists to others. While terrorists from our point of view, may be revolutionaries in the eyes of others.

The United States capitalistic views and 'we are always right' mentality infringed on the 'freedoms' and values in Muslim culture, which instigated a number of problems. From their perspective, USA are terrorists and began the whole war on terror themselves.

[MegaPhony]

a terrorist doesn't have to be a revolutionary though. He could be a reactionary.

Exactly.

[Akira]

Revolutionaries do something for an overall positive change.
Terrorists do something for an overall negative change.

That might not be stupid if the concepts of positive and negative change weren't completely objective.

[The End]

Okay.

Terrorists - the guys wearing turbans and shaking AKs in the desert. There, I said it, now we can all go home.

sikhs wear turbans

are they terrorists

[The End]

o wait they must be cuz they're brown

[Iskandar]

no, a terrorist is just a revolutionary that prefers some kind of tactical strategy.
A strategy of violence in order to create an atmosphere of terror.

[Amit]

are you serious (sikhious lol)

there have been plenty of sikh terrorists

[Iskandar]

are you serious (sikhious lol)

there have been plenty of sikh terrorists
But you can't generalize and say all Sikhs are terrorists, like when somebody defined terrorists as the guys in the desert with turbans shaking AKs.

[Amit]

oh of course not

[lunchforthesky]

A terrorist is a person or persons using the threat of, or actions which cause, terror to achieve social, political or religious aims etc..

A Revolutionary is a person who is seeking a social, poltical or religious change through any means not necessarily through violence or "terror" related means.

Obviously the whole thing is subjective and hinges on whether the perceived terrorist/revolutionary is acting justly or not.

[griftadan]

Revolutionaries do something for an overall positive change.
Terrorists do something for an overall negative change.

yeah the bolshevics were a real nice bunch of guys

[griftadan]

A strategy of violence in order to create an atmosphere of terror.

well yes that were be their preferred course of action

[-1up!-]

Revolutionaries do something for an overall positive change.
Terrorists do something for an overall negative change.


No not at all.

I quoted a university-level textbook so it should be taken into account:


I'll quote my International Relations textbook, maybe it can stir up some discussion.

My textbook does not make a clear distinction between a revolutionary individual and a terrorist individual. Rather it classes "revolutionary war" as a type of civil war and "terrorism" as a war strategy. Here goes.

Revolutionary war: Armed insurrection lead by a party or organization, with the support of a (more or less) significant part of the population, having as objective to take power and radical transformation of the political and/or economic order.

Terrorism (non-conventional war strategy): Any violent action which seeks to defeat the enemy, not by targeting its means of action (soldiers, weapons, the conventional targets in war) but by trying to produce an effect of terror which acts directly on the will to pursue the conflict. Contrary to conventional war tactics, the terrorist strategy tries to avoid the long, tiresome and uncertain action of trying to destroy or neutralize enemy forces, by placing the enemy in a demoralized state which is hoped to lead to capitulation.

The two concepts overlap. Revolutionary armies may very well resort to terrorism to reach their objectives.

The act of terrorism does not in itself, say anything about the pursued objectives, other than creating terror. It can very well be used in a revolutionary context, but "revolutionary" is a larger concept qualifying a type of war (it tells us about the ends pursued in an armed conflict) while "terrorist" is much more specific, and qualifies one who resorts to the actual act of terrorism as a strategy (terrorist acts are hence means taken to pursue given ends.)

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Revolutionaries do something for an overall positive change.
Terrorists do something for an overall negative change.


Yeah i mean Nelson Mandela was trying for such a negative change when he committed acts of terrorism :rolleyes:

Clearly you can campaign for a good thing using deplorable methods.

[semi]

terrorist didn't used to just mean arabs. you used to see terrorists in films just like robbing banks and killing people and stuff.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

terrorist didn't used to just mean arabs. you used to see terrorists in films just like robbing banks and killing people and stuff.

Robbing a bank is not really a terrorist activity unless you burn all the money afterwards or something



Anyway clearly not all terrorists are arabs

remember the IRA?

[Akira]

Robbing a bank is not really a terrorist activity unless you burn all the money afterwards or something



Anyway clearly not all terrorists are arabs

remember the IRA?

I'm guessing he doesn't think all terrorists are Arabs, but it rather commenting on how the government has done its best to get the public to equate terrorists and Arabs/Islam.

[Smokey D]

Terrorism (non-conventional war strategy): Any violent action which seeks to defeat the enemy, not by targeting its means of action (soldiers, weapons, the conventional targets in war) but by trying to produce an effect of terror which acts directly on the will to pursue the conflict. Contrary to conventional war tactics, the terrorist strategy tries to avoid the long, tiresome and uncertain action of trying to destroy or neutralize enemy forces, by placing the enemy in a demoralized state which is hoped to lead to capitulate.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this definition. The Blitz was designed to instill fear in the British and force them to surrender, but I don't think it's very useful to describe it as terrorism in the way we understand it today.

I think terrorism needs to be covert and have a degree of informality. Otherwise it's just warfare.