would Malcolm X (for example) be arrested for his "terrorist" ideas, or maybe he would just disappear?
2007-07-26 15:20:23 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The line between honest dissent and being labeled a terrorist is blurred in many people's minds....
But the line is really simple.
Is the person/group trying to affect change using violence and fear --- or are they using non-violent legal means.
2007-07-26 15:25:41 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mao tse tung once said that language can be used as a reflection and refraction of society. sensing the growing dissent among the masses all over the world, the US government is ever making moves to discredit the revolutionary movement to the people. the term 'terrorism' is redefined as any sort of opposition to the government. thus the birth of 'Anti-terror law' or 'human security act' in other neo-colonial countries such as the Philippines. it is the reflection of the chronic economic crisis: the old 'ruler' feverishly trying to hold on to power. the revolutionary movement is not the terrorist--they (the US government, along with its political puppets in many countries) are.
one day, when all of the people are actively opposing the old, and deteriorating imperialist rule, all of the people will be called terrorists.
2007-07-26 23:03:13 · answer #2 · answered by glinael 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Revolutionaries were patriots fighting for the liberation of a country in the name of the country. Terrorists are killing innocent people in the name of a religion. Killing innocent people, no matter who they are it is called a crime. Killing innocent people in order to accomplish their cause it is also called a crime. Malcolm X as long as he just talked and no action was taken then, he had a right under our Constitution. You could talk but you cannot threat because then is against the law.
2007-07-26 23:21:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything involving violence isn't revolutionary - it's barbaric!
Malcolm would have been a "citizen of interest" to the feds - but he eventually turned to a position of peace, and would have been an incredible leader.
2007-07-26 23:17:41 · answer #4 · answered by Julia M-M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A revolutionary intends to take over an established government and establish another. A terrorist intends to disrupt an established government, but doesn't necessarily intend to participate in or establish a new government to replace it.
2007-07-26 22:29:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if he would be arrested or not, but one thing is for sure, he would be bugged and monitored under the conditions set forth by the patriot act, which should be renamed, "The Fascism Act".
2007-07-26 22:25:57 · answer #6 · answered by bender_xr217 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, but if that was true they would have to lock up Bill O'Rielie at Guantanamo Bay because he has posted ideas of revolt on his website to take place when Senator Clinton wins the presidency.
2007-07-26 22:34:46 · answer #7 · answered by Kerry R 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋