Genealogy Forum UK

snoopysue wrote:Whether "terrorism" is a legitimate act or not, is decided after the fact by the winners!
WW2 is a good example - Hitler would probably have thought of resistance fighters, and secret opperatives as terrorists, but not to us - they were brave people doing a difficult but necessary job. It's really a question of politics, and who ends up on the winning side!

Well, not really. I think bombing a public place and with the purpose of killing random innocent people for some cause or other is surely always a bad thing, and I can't think of a single example which I would consider justifiable.

SRD » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:43 am
I'm not sure that it's quite that simple. Is being a 'terrorist' always a bad thing? Were the French Resistance terrorists?

I don't know, were they? Did they blow up trains containing only civilians with the intention of causing fear and terror, or did they blow up trains transporting German troops and ammunition with the intention of resisting an occupying force?

Some stuff is pretty clearly terrorism as far as I see it.
I am all for ex-terrorists reforming and becoming useful politicians but I felt that the whole Mandela-admiration thing was a bit over the top.

Waste of time gardener when people try to use ww2 as a justifation for a terrorist act then not point in replying

peterd wrote:Waste of time gardener when people try to use ww2 as a justifation for a terrorist act then not point in replying

All I'm saying is that whether history regards someone as a terrorist or not depends on who "wins" in the end. Just because you don't agree with what's being said doesn't mean that it's not a valid point.
I've never claimed you can justify terrorism, only that I can understand why some people feel driven to it. If you never try to understand the reasons behind terrorism, then you'll never be able to prevent it! If you read what I've said then you'll see that I'm against violence and would never condone what terrorists do.

I understand the reason for sunni and shias difference who was to be muhammeds sucessor (and so do they), his companion or his brother in law but it still dosent stop them slaughtering each other in there 100,000 or millions in the last 1400 years, so how can this justify the slaughter they are committing to each around the world ?