George Washington, William Wallace, Guy Fawkes, Che Guevera, Nat Turner and the like were all great revolutionary heroes in their own right but to the people they were fighting against they were labeled as heathens, maniacs, and brutal terrorists.
Where does the line come between justifiable revolution and terrorism?
2007-09-29 06:35:09 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Terrorism is where you hurt innocent people to get what you want.
Gandhi got people to take up a line of civil disobedience which hurt no one to get his point for example everyone walking instead of taking the bus lost revenue and most famously a hunger strike.
2007-09-29 23:29:33 · answer #1 · answered by Grinning Football plinny younger 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My answer is not meant to be mean or racists but it is the truth. Nat Turner, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Chief Crazy Horse, Chief Sitting Bull, etc. rebelled for survival because they were attacked first. Christopher Columbus and the European settlers that came after him were terrorist because they invaded, lied, cheated, slaughtered, and took without asking. The Native American Indians were willing to share and they did share but the Europeans wanted it all. The first European settlers that come to North America were exiled from England because they were criminals such as murderers and thieves. Then there were those Europeans that came for "religious freedom." But once they got here, the first thing they did was to persecute the Indians and try to force the Indians to become "Christians." They forgot all about "religious freedom" once they saw the clean and fertile land. When the Indians refused to accept the Europeans religion, they called them savages and killed them. However, the Europeans made sure that they baptized the little Indian babies before they killed them. If you don't believe what I'm saying search your history. Now you tell me where does the line come between rebellion and terrorism?
2007-09-29 07:14:59 · answer #2 · answered by Spirit Dancer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
while they initiate off focused on Civilians and youngsters and not organic military and government places. i think of the Rebels of the 60's which incorporate grow to be throughout in mandatory united states of america and Cuba. they did not terrorize the persons basically Batista and his adult men to illustrate. at present while while harmless people who're not in the army or government are focused that now turns into terrorism. the days of wars having fronts are close to over, a conflict could be fairly a lot everywhere now even in our very own lower back yards now or some one else's. now not to squaddies face off in open fields leaving the hundreds out of it. SO i think of it incredibly is partly what attracts a line.
2016-10-20 07:41:18 · answer #3 · answered by jeremie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism- To kill innocent civilians because of their race,religion,etc and/or to force your beliefs using fear as the main motivator
Rebellion- To fight against those who try to persecue innocent civilians because of their race,religion etc.
2007-09-29 06:52:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Actually fighting in a war or blowing up people because you don't like their race or religion?
2007-09-29 06:40:04 · answer #5 · answered by punch 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the line is right in the middle. it just depends which side you're on, and what you believe
2007-09-29 06:39:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
when you attack civilians, you are a terrorist.
had nat turner killed other slaves, or tried to destroy plantations, he would be a terrorist.
lost.eu/21618
2007-09-29 06:38:30 · answer #7 · answered by Quailman 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋