teshuah
02-07-2008, 09:46 PM
I thought to look up the definition of Terrorism as Dr. Paul had mentioned in his latest speech something like terrorism has to do with acts of war.
So I went to Dictionary.com and typed in terrorism.
terrorism
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]
General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
The bolded part is what stuck out to me. Just some food for thought. I realize most here are probably on the same page. But it enlightens a new way of approaching the subject with others for me, so I thought I'd share it here.
Terrorism might look like acts of terrorism to us, the ones it is being perpetrated on, but to those who are the supposed terrorists they are freedom fighters for a cause (their sovereignity)
So I went to Dictionary.com and typed in terrorism.
terrorism
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]
General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
The bolded part is what stuck out to me. Just some food for thought. I realize most here are probably on the same page. But it enlightens a new way of approaching the subject with others for me, so I thought I'd share it here.
Terrorism might look like acts of terrorism to us, the ones it is being perpetrated on, but to those who are the supposed terrorists they are freedom fighters for a cause (their sovereignity)