~Depends entirely on whether you're behind the sights or in front of the barrell. Duh.
2007-02-09 17:43:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The politicans of the world, for each generation, have their own catch-words which are used to scare and control their people, and justify what they want to do.
During the years after world war II, the name used for evil, and a threat to our world, was "communism"..and this was the reason or justification for the U.S. to get involved with N.A.T.O.
the U.N., and send troops to other parts of the world, to "stop the spread of communism." and spread democracy.(Our word for "Good Stuff") This continued thru the 1950's and early 1960's until the young people of this country, the ones fighting and dieing in Viet Nam came up with their own catch word for evil, "The Washington Establishment" and began a generation of critical thinkers who did not trust the words of the Politicans. Events such as Watergate, the craziness of the day supported this thought.
Next we have the fall of the U.S.S.R (the Boogieman) for which the President (Regan) took credit, even though he had little to do with it, and because of his popularity,(Attempts were made on his life, which endeared him to the masses) changed the name of evil from "Communism" to "Liberalism" and "Democrats". These catch words are still used today, but because the current president couldn't obtain his agenda, he choose to put forth a new catch-word for evil, to scare and control the masses, and thus came the new name, "Terrorism".
I'm sure the average iraqi would call us the "Terrorists" in their country, and the people fighting the civil war there today, consider them self's to be holy warriors, patriots, and on the correct side of the conflict...both sides think they are "Gods chosen people" and the Americans are the evil "Crusaders" (BinLaden's catch-word for evil, to scare and control his people)
I suggest, when ever you hear or read one of the catch-words, you substitute the phrase, "The person I don't like", or "The people I don't like" for the catch-word and then take a critical look at the person speaking or writing, and determine what he WANTS, why he wants to SCARE or CONTROL you and the rest of us.
2007-02-09 13:38:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In definition, it is not different. The main difference lies in the fact that the British are no longer doing this but various countries in the world continue to sponsor terrorism.
2007-02-01 21:03:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by PDY 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
There really wasn't a difference. These privateers, who also committed acts of piracy, were hired TO terrorize opposing forces, especially in the Atlantic ocean and Caribbean.
2007-02-08 16:59:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Logie 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You're talking PIRATES, matey! Arrrgh!
The difference between privateers and pirates is whose side they were on. The British sanctioned private missions to harry Spanish treasure galleons...sort of a non-war act of war. Of course it got completely out of hand and veered quickly to the wrong side of the law. Sounds like state-sponsored terrorism to me.
2007-02-08 09:20:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
All privateers were not British,Some were Spanish,some French and yes,American. It was a way of seeking contraband by various governments of the era.terrorists are irrational indiscriminate killers of just any one,children, women,men.They use religious and political motivation for the killings.Privateers kidnapped for ransom,usually were paid and released prisoners.
terrorists torment the innocent and blow them up or chop off their heads.
2007-02-09 16:18:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Gloryana 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Privateers carried letters from the government (the Crown) authorizing their form of banditry. Terrorists of the17th century variety were just plain pirates.
2007-02-01 22:22:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bullwinkle Moose 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Privateer is referred to "A privately owned and commissioned warship" as defined by the Oxford Dictionary.
A terrorists are persons who are ruthless fighters who fight using terror tactics for a miss-placed ideology or purely for money (such as the mercenaries).
So one is a vessel and the other are persons.
2007-02-01 21:27:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋