If terroism is the killing of children women civilian are the americans terroist for killing the native american indians for their land
2006-07-26 06:23:00 · 8 answers · asked by ANN 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You could make an argument for that, but you would also have to concede that some of the Native Americans who killed the settlers were also terrorists if they killed women and children.
What is the point of dragging up this example from a hundred or more years ago? If you go to almost any culture, people or country you are going to find the same.
I think we should focus on getting this crisis in the Middle East solved quickly so fewer people die (especially the innocents). Everyone must force the leaders of their own country to get involved in the peace-making process.
2006-07-26 06:31:35 · answer #1 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
terrorists in the Indian eyes. Conquerors...yes...Wrong yes. I do not define terrorism the way you do.
In the absence of a political aim, the activity in quest will not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism.
2006-07-26 06:27:26 · answer #2 · answered by Bear Naked 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism, n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
By that definition (see source below) I would say no.
I would say that the people who annihilated the indigenous people of the Americas (our forefathers) were ruthless barbarian invaders bent on raping the land of its natural resources and killing everything and everyone that got in their way.
But I think we may just be splitting hairs. :D
2006-07-26 06:33:49 · answer #3 · answered by Rev Phred 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course, im not argueing with you at all on that.
alotta americans feel that way, i bet youre from another
country.
the native americans were driven away from their land
2006-07-26 06:27:33 · answer #4 · answered by Jenster*is*flipping*you*off 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, more like hostile take over.
Good definition REV Phred :)
2006-07-26 06:47:41 · answer #5 · answered by This, That & such 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a definite yes.
2006-07-26 06:26:05 · answer #6 · answered by PJFan 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definately. There is no doubt.
2006-07-26 06:26:24 · answer #7 · answered by miketorse 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yep, which would mean many other countries would have been too.
2006-07-26 06:27:07 · answer #8 · answered by OneDay 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋