Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (12483)	5/8/2002 12:41:04 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Neither Jesus nor Gandhi were terrorists within any accepted definition. No one calls passive resistance terrorism. Terrorism is the use of terror (i.e., violent acts) to make a political statement, in the hope of gaining advantage. It is especially the targeting of civilians, though that is not required. It is distinguished from guerrilla warfare, even when aimed at military personnel, when it is mainly aimed at demoralization, rather than a clear military objective. Terror tactics may be used by ordinary armies, on occasion. Generally, the term is confined to a primary reliance on such tactics.

To: average joe who wrote (12483)	5/8/2002 12:48:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Jesus and Gandhi were considered terrorists by some and it easy to label anyone a terrorist who goes against the local rule of law. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist. Some of them actually are terrorists, some of them are not. The IRA and the PLO are terrorist organizations. Jesus and Gandhi where not terrorists. An acceptable form of terrorism would be passive resistance and the underground economy and they work much better against an outlaw state. Passive resistance may be illegal in some situations but it is not terrorism. Tim