English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is it just who's reporting?

2006-09-01 04:07:02 · 14 answers · asked by TheGreatGatsby 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

14 answers

A Revolutionary is someone who acts alone or with others to change the form of government or society or an economy (or in fact any social institution) by sudden, extra - legal means. Revolutionaries may or may not use terror as a weapon or tactic.

A terrorist is someone who uses random violence to cause people to act as the terrorist desires out of fear. Terrorists may or may not be revolutionaries. As often as not they are reactionaries who are trying to prevent a social change.

2006-09-01 06:22:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Define Revolutionaries

2016-11-09 19:28:51 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I have the same issue with my father. He believes that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. This is a cop-out implying that whatever you do within your cause is justified by any means whatever. I believe that if one INTENTIONALLY targets civilians; then that is the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary. They both have political agendas; however, one is more honorable than the other. A revolutionary will attempt to cause change without the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians. Now, when a State causes civilian casualties that are NOT INTENTIONAL, but are COLLATERAL, this is not terrorism. Therefore, Hezbollah indiscriminatly targeting Israel regardless of where their missles land would be deemed a terrorist organization; Israel bombing Qana since Hezbollah is using their own people as human shields would not be considered a terrorist act since the harming of civlians was not intentional but a side effect of the initial cause of Hezbollah firing missles from within civilian areas.

2006-09-01 04:15:26 · answer #3 · answered by goldmedaldiver 2 · 0 0

I guess the difference between them both would be subjected to it's audience. Many groups around the world are formed because of corrupted governments, specific belief's or idea's and because of oppression. Usually, these groups call themselves "revolutionary", but those who are against those idea's, call them "terrorist".

Example: The U.S. government is considered by many countries in Latin America, Europe and in the Middle East as a state sponsoring terrorist activities around the world. But the U.S. government feels like their not. Sometimes, the best interest of the United States is not the best interest for others. Anything and Everything is done for the security of the homeland. I consider the U.S.- a terrorist state.

2006-09-01 08:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by berrio5398 2 · 0 0

Revolution is a cause. Terror is a tactic. A revolutionary is not necessarily a terrorist (see Gandhi) yet not all terrorists are revolutionaries.

2006-09-01 04:16:13 · answer #5 · answered by shoelace 3 · 0 0

I would hope that revolutionaries are not out to just kill as many people as possible who are against them. I think it is just who is reporting, though. I can't say I've heard any news anchors calling terrorists , revolutionaries though. It will be interesting to see the responses you get though. Good question

2006-09-01 04:10:16 · answer #6 · answered by Ca-C 3 · 0 1

Look, its really simple. A terrorist is one who uses fear and intimidation against a civilian populace to bring about political or ideological goals from the target government or its citizens. They indiscriminately attack civilian targets to strike fear into the population.

A freedom fighter/revolutionary fight against their own government. They attack military targets or targets key to military infastructure.

It has nothing to do with who is reporting. If a reporter calls a terrrorist a revolutionary, then they are not reporting the facts.

2006-09-01 04:30:52 · answer #7 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 0 0

I think revolutionarys use more discretion on who they target to kill and many times have some sort of identifiable uniform. Terrorists don't necessarily do thier harm in a cause for a new government either.

2006-09-01 04:12:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Terrorists do not discriminate who their victims are, revolutionaries direct their attacks toward a regime they want changed for one reason or another (oppression, etc.). Although, innocent people die at the hands of both, terrorists make a target the those innocent of people.

2006-09-01 04:12:23 · answer #9 · answered by OatesATM 3 · 0 1

A revolutionary would not kill innocent people and claim it to be a job for a cause. The terrorsist do that all the time.

2006-09-01 04:12:26 · answer #10 · answered by Coolguy_punjabi 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers