Terrorism Through the Ages

[Isiah 2:4]

Were Samson, Jesus, Mohammed, and Ben Gurion all religious terrorists or initiators of terrorism?

Samson - www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/ story/0,1300,553741,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/ story/0,1300,553741,00.html)

Jesus - http://www.jesuswasaterrorist.com/

Mohammed - feistymama.com/bp/mohammed.htm

Ben Gurion - http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_attacks_jewish.php

Just some preliminary (not necessarily impartial) viewpoints to think about.

I was prompted to start this thread, after somebody referred to Ben Gurion as a terrorist, in discussions with me regarding Israel.

:confused:

These arent my opinions by the way, i just thought it may make interesting discussion.......What does everyone else think?

[andak01]

Way to start a fire, hehe. Very few if any Israelis are going to accept Ben Gurion characterized as a terrorist. But anyone who lost property or family members because of his policies might say so. Likewise with the other men on your list. Jesus (SAW) would seem to be a hard sell. But if we could dig up one of the thousands of Arians killed over the so-called 'Arian heresy', they might say otherwise.

'Colateral damage', death squads, torture and environmental destruction on a grand scale aren't referred to as terrorism, and thus in our current paradigm are much more difficult to villify. But their results are terrifying, lasting and apt to cause terrible resentment.

I would add to your list the following:

Francis "the Swamp Fox" Marion
William Quantrell
John Brown
Lawrence of Arabia (who incidently was fighting on the behalf of the Wahhabbis)
Ariel Sharon (not destined to be a popular opinion on this forum, but I would gladly throw in Arafat or anyone who supports martyrdom operations)
Nelson Mandela

Of course, I do not believe that Muhammad (SAW) was a terrorist. He spoke out against the killing of women and children in combat. His warfare tactics would probably be referred to as guerrilla tactics today. But, as we are seeing, any group that fights in the jungles on the side of the left instead of the right are apt to be classed as terrorists. Some groups, like the Mujahhiddeen/Taliban are terrorist or freedom fighter depending upon whether they fight the Soviet Union or the Unocal pipeline. And I am pretty sure that the Afghans were classified by Russia as terrorists during that war. That's why they call it HISstory.

[Isiah 2:4]

Originally posted by andak01
That's why they call it HISstory.

;)

[Mercury]

Originally posted by andak01
Very few if any Israelis are going to accept Ben Gurion characterized as a terrorist.
I would add to your list the following:

Ariel Sharon (not destined to be a popular opinion on this forum, but I would gladly throw in Arafat or anyone who supports martyrdom operations)


I do not consider Ben Gurion a sacred person, yet I have not found anything in the link Isiah provided which connects him to terrorism. Sharon is also not one of my darlings, yet I would like you to prove your claim that he is a terrorist (i.e. that he deliberately committed/ordered killing of non-combatting civilians).

[Isiah 2:4]

I never said he was a terrorist!

I said i have heard people talk of him as a terrorist.

The link was just background info as regards to Jewish terrorism against the British, which Ben Gurion actually did condemn after some time.

;)

[Mediocrates]

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a terrorist. So was John Brown.

[andak01]

I think you've opened up a can of worms there. Forrest was praised by Sherman and Grant. And Sherman himself might be considered a terrorist. John Brown's terrorism was in the cause of Abolition, a cause which we acknowledge today as a good cause. Sherman's terrorism was in the cause of the Union, which is the ancestor of our own government, one that has not since been uprooted. So, is terrorism simply a method of warfare? Can terrorists fight for good causes? I mentioned Nelson Mandela. I would still say that apartheid was a good cause to fight for.

What do these terrorists have in common? None of them had the means to fight a convenitonal battle. Each of them believed that the ends justify the means. And in the short term anyway, each (excepting Sherman, if we deem him one of the group) lost. Forrest lost the Civil War, John Brown was hung, Mandela was imprisoned. One might argue that Brown and Mandela did suceed in turning public opinion.

Frankly, I wouldn't have supported any of these men, or the ones I mentioned above. I DO find terrorism is a reprehensible thing, but I generally feel the same about warfare as well. Parents cry the same tears when they lose a child, regardless of the method or the politics behind the loss. The most horrendous thing about terrorism is its general ineffectiveness. It is a death of innocent people that leads only to the death of more innocent people. It does nothing to stop killing, and everything to continue a cycle of violence.

[Mediocrates]

Yes I only meant to hightlight the differences of the lens of history. One went on to be one of the founders of the KKK and the other is praised as a martyr of concience.

I understand what Sherman and Grant were talking about. More so Sherman. His march through Georgia was condemned as terrorism but in fact he did not engage Conf. troops or civilians willfully. He went after 'infrastructure', caused fewer casualties and lead to an early end to hostilities. It was the 19th Century equivalent of surgical strikes.

Grant - I don't think fits the definition at all. He applied a simple philosophy. Attrition. He understood as I think as Eisenhower did that his enemy would not stop until its physical ability to function was literally destroyed.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01

I would add to your list the following:

Ariel Sharon (not destined to be a popular opinion on this forum, but I would gladly throw in Arafat or anyone who supports martyrdom operations)



Wasn't Ariel Sharon the commander of the commando unit which went into the west bank in the 60s to carry out reprisal raids against Jordanian towns? If my memory serves me correctly, I thought that they picked target villages and blew up a bunch of houses, either randomly selected or based on some sort of criteria. I also was of the belief that they did this at night and didn't tell anyone to get out. the reprisals were meant to use the Plaestinians to pressure the Jordanians to cease attacking from the West Bank.

If terrorism is defined as attacks against civilians to achieve political aims, wouldn't Sharon qualify?

And I am a big supporter of him in the curent conflict, I just think it is sometimes necessary to assess things regardless of whether that assessment furthers a favoured point of view.

[Dantheman]

It makes no difference what you or I or anyone else thinks or 'knows'. In the end, Jesus wins.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i0f0

Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000

[Isiah 2:4]

Originally posted by Dantheman
In the end, Jesus wins.

Mmmmkay.....wins as what? A Jewish Prophet? A Christian? A Prophet of Allah?

Who does he win over? Who does he win for?

Christians? Whites? Believers? The Righteous? The Faithful? The Twelve tribes of Israel? The West? The East? The World? Those who fight the fiercest?

[Isiah 2:4]

Nobody know?