Malaysia recognizes Kosovo independance.

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I support anyone who wishes to throw off the yoke of foreign governance.

Whether such independence is SMART for them is another question, but they'll figure that out in due time, or suffer the consequences of not; either way, they should be able to do it themselves.

 

[Gelion]

Would that theoretically include Texas? California? Flanders? Wales? Dakota people?

 

[TheLastOne36]

The Americans were terrorists once, too, and it won us our independence. I'm not saying that what either side did was right, but that doesn't change the fact that a people have a right to rule themselves if they so wish to. You don't think that all Kosovars were involved in that madness, do you? The ones who were should be dealt with appropriately, but if the Kosovars as a people desire to rule themselves, because they feel that their present government, the Serbs, are doing them more harm than good, then they should be able to, and the same goes for the Ossetians and Abkhazians, just as it did for Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks, former members of Yugoslavia,anyone. Such was the United States' mission once: to sponsor, encourage, or at the very least, morally agree with, independence. This is what I refer to when I say that we have fallen so far.

It is ridiculous to compare Former Yugoslavic countries or former USSR countries to Kosovo. They were more of a union of countries who agreed that independence was the best option to go. Comparing America to Kosovo is much more reaslistic to comparing it to Croatia or Belarus.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I support anyone who wishes to throw off the yoke of foreign governance.

Whether such independence is SMART for them is another question, but they'll figure that out in due time, or suffer the consequences of not; either way, they should be able to do it themselves.

Give the Lakota autonomy then. That idea is about as ridiculous to americans as Kosovo is to serbs.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The Americans were terrorists once, too,

Out of curosity, what acts done by the Americans in the War of Independence qualify as "terrorist"?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If they can get a majority that wants independence, then yes. After all, if we're doing a horrible enough job of addressing their needs for them to want independence, then we aren't in a position to argue against it. Again, whether such a thing is smart for them is a different story, they will have to provide all manner of services for themselves, and have some basis for an economy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It is ridiculous to compare Former Yugoslavic countries or former USSR countries to Kosovo. They were more of a union of countries who agreed that independence was the best option to go. Comparing America to Kosovo is much more reaslistic to comparing it to Croatia or Belarus.

The principle remains the same.

Give the Lakota autonomy then. That idea is about as ridiculous to americans as Kosovo is to serbs.

See above post.

Out of curosity, what acts done by the Americans in the War of Independence qualify as "terrorist"?

Blowing up Royal Navy ships, piracy, et al. We waged one nasty guerrilla war.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Not sure if piracy can be called "terrorism"... Also, blowing up ships? Declaring independence and attacking enemy militiary forces is not terrorism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not sure if piracy can be called "terrorism"... Also, blowing up ships? Declaring independence and attacking enemy militiary forces is not terrorism.

I don't mean blowing up ships with cannonade, I mean setting kegs of gunpowder alight and booking it, or sailing burning dinghies into RN ships in harbor.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't mean blowing up ships with cannonade, I mean setting kegs of gunpowder alight and booking it, or sailing burning dinghies into RN ships in harbor.

Still not "terrorism", IMO. What's the principal difference between destroying an enemy ship in that way or other?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Still not "terrorism", IMO. What's the principal difference between destroying an enemy ship in that way or other?

Is setting a bomb on the side of the road to blow up passing military vehicles terrorism?

Yes it it. So Blowing up an enemy ship holds the same principal.

 

[carmen510]

To the British during the War of American Independence, the modern definition would be 'terrorists'

To the American colonies, they would be 'freedom fighters'. (Kind of like Hamas in a way, except they are not vouching the destruction of Israel. )

Terrorism's very definition is to use terror (Or violence, if you want to be more blunt about it in this case) to further your political goals. The American' political goal was to gain independence. The British's goal was to keep the colonies.

So yes, General Washington was technically a 'terrorist'.

But enough of that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well the Continental Army would be more comparable to simply a rebel army; it was the small, individual acts of sabotage that constituted terrorism.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Is setting a bomb on the side of the road to blow up passing military vehicles terrorism?

No. Bombs are used in wars constantly, and the use of bombs does not constitute "terrorism". Even the use of all these anti-infantry bombs which remain dangerous long after the conflict's over are generally disliked precisely 'cause of that. I never seen anyone claim that using them is "terrorist".

What's the difference between seting a bomb on the side of the road and dropping it from an airplane?

Terrorism's very definition is to use terror (Or violence, if you want to be more blunt about it in this case) to further your political goals. The American' political goal was to gain independence. The British's goal was to keep the colonies.

So yes, General Washington was technically a 'terrorist'.

So, any participant in militiary action is a terrorist? Is any militiary general a terrorist?

 

[plarq]

No. Bombs are used in wars constantly, and the use of bombs does not constitute "terrorism". Even the use of all these anti-infantry bombs which remain dangerous long after the conflict's over are generally disliked precisely 'cause of that. I never seen anyone claim that using them is "terrorist".

What's the difference between seting a bomb on the side of the road and dropping it from an airplane?



So, any participant in militiary action is a terrorist? Is any militiary general a terrorist?

Authority is terrorism.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

And I like to use term "Former eastern bloc".

You might like the term, but it is wrong when it comes to Serbia/Kosovo.
Yugoslavia was not part of the eastern block.

 

[Dachs]

So, any participant in militiary action is a terrorist? Is any militiary general a terrorist?

There is a fine line. I go with Cheezy on this.

 

[carmen510]

@Lone Wolf:

No, not every person in a military action is a terrorist.

Anybody who uses terror to further their political (Note: I didn't say military dammit) goals. The American rebels' political goal was to gain independence from Britain.

Therefore, yes, military generals would be considered terrorists. Unless you believe that Osama Bin Laden is not a terrorist... (Generalizing) As for every participant, I assume you mean the normal foot soldier. And it quite honestly depends. Are they forced to fight, or if not, are they trying to further their political goal? Is it merely to kill people because they are sadists, or to kill to steal uniforms from dead soldiers for the cause?

EDIT: Also, leaders may not necessarily be terrorists, maybe they are just dissenting politicians. I highly doubt you can call Benjamin Franklin a terrorist, he did not have military associations.)

 

[Lone Wolf]

Therefore, yes, military generals would be considered terrorists.

That's not the usual way the term is used...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nor is it the way that I intended it to be.

There should also be a line drawn between insurgency and terrorism, which Dachs already alluded to with abd al-Qadir and Eumenes. Not all terrorists are insurgents, and not all insurgents are terrorists. Generally, terrorism is not associated with a military outfit, though its goals can be similar to those of military value. This is why I mentioned the sabotage of RN ships during the Revolution as terrorism, but not the blowing up of rail lines during the Boer War.