For the sake of this thread, I will ask that the counter arguement of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, to be left to one side.

Two recent incidents make me ask:

The recent assination by Israeli ( allegedly ) agents of a prominent Hamas official and the response of a former Mossad agent that there is no longer a Maginot line or Stalingrad to have a pitch battle, but the front line are the streets of London and Jerusalem.

Ehud Olmert has also expressed reasoning that he would not exclude the assination of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority.

Now for the kicker, recently we have seen Gerry Adams present a programme about Jesus and he tried to bring relevance of His teachings and struggle to his own.

Martin McGuinness, hard line leader of the IRA and principal decision maker ( my comment and unverified ) is also the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland.

So to draw a comparison, a white skinned Catholic Irishman and a dark skinned Muslim Palestinian, one is asked to pesent a programme on Jesus, the other is bumped off.

Would the British media ask an unrepentent Islamic terrorist who had killed ordinary Israely citizens to present a programme on the Prophet Mohammed, Ratklo Mladic to talk about Orthodox Christianity?

Is the war on terror in the middle east any different to the war in the Six Counties, or Northern Ireland to be perfectly equitable.

So my question, are my comparisons fair, are certain terrorists more equal than others?

Sorry, but this is not very clear IMHO. Are you asking if there is a difference between a former terrorist who is now peaceful and a terrorist who is still doing their best to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible? If so, I would point to Nelson Mandela and say that the answer is yes.

Being rather relevant to today [ mladic] I thought I would invest in the question again.

Sorry, but this is not very clear IMHO. Are you asking if there is a difference between a former terrorist who is now peaceful and a terrorist who is still doing their best to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible? If so, I would point to Nelson Mandela and say that the answer is yes.

And to answer your question, I am definately not defining a difference between a 'former' terrorist/freedom fighter, anyone who is still plying the trade, needs to be starved of the oxygen of publicity. But in itself that is an intersting question, do you starve them, or feed them, the more people know, the more they may come to realise the very intent, and it does depend on your interpretation of peaceful.

Are Certain Terrorists More Equal Than Others?

yes! here's the proof:

Ehud Olmert has also expressed reasoning that he would not exclude the assination of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

Martin McGuiness changed hats from senior member of the IRA to religious teacher while crossing the road.

Nelson Mandela served twenty-odd years in prison before being released and becoming elected President of South Africa.

I don't know if either has had a Damascus moment, or were/are unrestructured terrorists all the time, but they have come to live in the real world, where they are bound to hear many differing opinions, whereas during the terrorist era each was surrounded only by like-minded thinkers.

Also, both have seen their particular parts of the world change to accommodate, to a greater or lesser extent, their views. In the Middle East things are currently in a state of flux, no-one knows where the chips will lie when the dust settles. Israel is still surrounded by hostile forces, encouraged from other enemies further afield. They have assassination squads, as did the UK in N. Ireland and as does the US (Bin Ladin being the latest example). At the moment the UK and France are trying to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi, which to my mind is very little different to the same MG providing C4 and machine guns to the IRA. Civilians are getting killed by all these people mentioned.

The terrorist / freedom fighter has a cause of overturning the status quo. Currently Camoron and Sarkozy are attempting exactly that. Both do so by using attacks on 'soft' targets - civilians.

Really, I condemn them all for their actions in putting innocent lives at great risk of harm, but I am not sure what to think of them after this phase of events has passed. Do we hunt them down, like Radko Mladic, make them President, like Mandela, O'Bama and Sarkozy, allow them to just get on with life unmolested, allow them to influence future generations, like McGuiness and Camoron?

All have used the killing of others as a part of their philosophy on life. Not just the target person(s), but accepted 'collateral damage' of the deaths of innocents and their own troops.

I find it unacceptable from all of them.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

Right, or politically correct, UG? If an assassination squad took out Ahmedinajab, or Netanyahu, or the Palestinian president (forgotten his name), or Assad of Syria, would that be the right thing to do? There are plenty of people who would answer yes in each case, though obviously they would be different people for each. And the others would say it was a crime.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

Right, or politically correct, UG? If an assassination squad took out Ahmedinajab, or Netanyahu, or the Palestinian president (forgotten his name), or Assad of Syria, would that be the right thing to do? There are plenty of people who would answer yes in each case, though obviously they would be different people for each. And the others would say it was a crime.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

Many would say that it would have been 'right' to take out Hitler in the mid-1930s, but would it have been right for the Germans to take out Churchill in the early 1940s?

And so on.

But these are political leaders, whereas the OP was looking more at religious zealots, some with a political agenda. I don't like any of this really, but am more inclined to condemn religious zealots than political ones. The two got very tangled in Ulster, they are inextricably mixed in Israel/Palestine. And both these situations are almost unresolveable. Even now there are people on both sides in the six counties who do not accept the 'settlement'.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

Right, or politically correct, UG? If an assassination squad took out Ahmedinajab, or Netanyahu, or the Palestinian president (forgotten his name), or Assad of Syria, would that be the right thing to do? There are plenty of people who would answer yes in each case, though obviously they would be different people for each. And the others would say it was a crime.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

Many would say that it would have been 'right' to take out Hitler in the mid-1930s, but would it have been right for the Germans to take out Churchill in the early 1940s?

And so on.

But these are political leaders, whereas the OP was looking more at religious zealots, some with a political agenda. I don't like any of this really, but am more inclined to condemn religious zealots than political ones. The two got very tangled in Ulster, they are inextricably mixed in Israel/Palestine. And both these situations are almost unresolveable. Even now there are people on both sides in the six counties who do not accept the 'settlement'.

I don't think I can differentiate between murderous zealots of any colour; religious, political, racial, whatever.

A murderous zealot is a murderous zealot, whether dressed in a pinstripe suit, a suicide vest, or a pastor's stock.

There is actually something more noble (in a pitiful way) in the suicide vest clad murderous zealot than in the pinstriped murderous political zealot that gives orders from afar.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

= usual diversion completely besides the point which was:

Ehud Olmert has also expressed reasoning that he would not exclude the assination of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority.

and missed "ass-ination"

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

= usual diversion completely besides the point which was:

Ehud Olmert has also expressed reasoning that he would not exclude the assination of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority.

and missed "ass-ination"

I thought I dealt with 'the point', Naam, in my post. And everybody took 'assination'as a typo and not worth commenting on.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

It is not always that black and white, the bombing of Khadaffis home in '86? killed his daughter/son and the recent bombing of his compound/information nerve centre killed more of his off spring, and then there was the assasination of Hariri in Lebanon, many other casualties in that one.

Nelson Mandela

Of course his cause was a noble one, but nonetheless he was a terrorist and many, many people were killed through his actions. Many of them innocent.

And yes he has 'done his time' but would all terrorists/former terrorists be allowed that same sentiment?

and missed "ass-ination"

Didn't miss it - just thought it was not worth mentioning like most of what you like to think of think of as your "wit".

Nelson Mandela

Of course his cause was a noble one, but nonetheless he was a terrorist and many, many people were killed through his actions. Many of them innocent.

And yes he has 'done his time' but would all terrorists/former terrorists be allowed that same sentiment?

Considering that most of the sentiment is aroused through length of time in captivity and the only reason he spent so much time in Jail was because of his refusal to give up the armed struggle, a noble cause indeed, but the sentiment, hmmm.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

It is not always that black and white, the bombing of Khadaffis home in '86? killed his daughter/son and the recent bombing of his compound/information nerve centre killed more of his off spring, and then there was the assasination of Hariri in Lebanon, many other casualties in that one.

Moss - I was in Benghazi at that time.

The A&E Hospital (Jalla Hospital) received I don't know how many casualties that night, of which 132 died. All were civilians, the Libyan Army has it's own hospitals, where wounded military personnel were taken.

I had friends working in Jalla A&E, and went to see them next morning, after checking on my own workforce. All the girls were covered in blood, working on wards that were slippery with blood. The night staff stayed on to help the morning shift, many of whom had come in during the night.

These were mainly filipina and East European nurses, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. The doctors were Libyan and East European. I'll never forget the sight that morning.

I was bombed out in 1941, when I was four years old, so I don't remember much about that - but this totally unwarranted attack on civilians shook me badly.

(Yes, some aircraft dispersed about the Benghazi Airport were hit, but so was a gas station 12km from the airport - the only 'military' target in Benghazi)

Nelson Mandela

Of course his cause was a noble one, but nonetheless he was a terrorist and many, many people were killed through his actions. Many of them innocent.

And yes he has 'done his time' but would all terrorists/former terrorists be allowed that same sentiment?

Considering that most of the sentiment is aroused through length of time in captivity and the only reason he spent so much time in Jail was because of his refusal to give up the armed struggle, a noble cause indeed, but the sentiment, hmmm.

I'm not sure that the sentiment is aroused through the length of time.... Many would have forgiven him had he served less or even none.

A noble cause, a tenacious determination to see what was wrong put right, the wrongness of the wrong, perhaps even his bearing and attitude: He did not come across as blood-thirsty or hate-driven, rather as intent on putting a wrong right whereas most terrorists (even the pinstriped ones) appear to have motives of hate and revenge.

Moss - I was in Benghazi at that time.

The A&E Hospital (Jalla Hospital) received I don't know how many casualties that night, of which 132 died. All were civilians, the Libyan Army has it's own hospitals, where wounded military personnel were taken.

I had friends working in Jalla A&E, and went to see them next morning, after checking on my own workforce. All the girls were covered in blood, working on wards that were slippery with blood. The night staff stayed on to help the morning shift, many of whom had come in during the night.

These were mainly filipina and East European nurses, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. The doctors were Libyan and East European. I'll never forget the sight that morning.

I was bombed out in 1941, when I was four years old, so I don't remember much about that - but this totally unwarranted attack on civilians shook me badly.

(Yes, some aircraft dispersed about the Benghazi Airport were hit, but so was a gas station 12km from the airport - the only 'military' target in Benghazi)

A heck of a lot worse than ever I heard, I will always give precedent to eye witness statements to newspaper political statement,which just further gives cause to political assasination not being clinical.

now i'm waiting for the usual suspects to claim that "assination" is not a crime but a befitting procedure

It certainly was the right thing to do in the case of Osama Bin Ladin.

Ehud Olmert has also expressed reasoning that he would not exclude the assination of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority.

So UG, what do you think of this statement, an acceptable form of reasoning, or not?

and missed "ass-ination"

Didn't miss it - just thought it was not worth mentioning like most of what you like to think of think of as your "wit".

you either missed it or you write your usual BS again. it was not my wit but a typo in Mossfinn's posting:

next BS please!

Frick the typo's and my mis-spellings, answer the question guys, Hump is leading the way with some great responses there, but frick my inability to spell.

Frick the typo's and my mis-spellings, answer the question guys, Hump is leading the way with some great responses there, but frick my inability to spell.

as long as a spelling mistake like ass-ination causes a smile it's ok!

Mossy's first question is a tough one to answer and I haven't answered for just that reason. I try to think how I would react if someone killed my family while carrying out some mission authorized by a world leader. My first thought would be for revenge and to hell with the consequences. Yes, I WOULD become a terrorist. Hitting someone's family is worse than killing the intended person themself.

However, I think it all comes down to WHO started the conflict in the first place. That is the person who should have their ass in a sling. Once you start a fight, battle or war then all bets are off and anything goes. There are no more Marquis of Queensbury rules to follow. In any war it is ALWAYS the innocent who suffer the worst of it. That is a given. At the ground level we all act on pure emotion. For the betterment of all it might sometimes be justified to take out a leader who is leading his people into a losing situation. Things might have been totally different had someone assassinated Hitler in the mid 1930s. Big oil money has played such a huge part in all the Middle East conflicts it is hard to know who is the bad guy and who isn't.

Somebody should have shot Robert Mugabe a long time ago, but he would probably have been replaced by someone equally bad. North Korea, Myanmar, Iran and a bunch of African countries are not exactly hotbeds of democracy and civil rights.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

A number of people took exception to this definition, but I stand by it. Of course in the killing of a political target, there is what the Americans call 'collateral damage'; however great this is, and however many people are killed, it doesn't change the objective.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

A number of people took exception to this definition, but I stand by it. Of course in the killing of a political target, there is what the Americans call 'collateral damage'; however great this is, and however many people are killed, it doesn't change the objective.

And how does terrorist killings change the objective, they have an objective too, some might even call it a more moral objective than a political bombing?

Mossy's first question is a tough one to answer and I haven't answered for just that reason. I try to think how I would react if someone killed my family while carrying out some mission authorized by a world leader. My first thought would be for revenge and to hell with the consequences. Yes, I WOULD become a terrorist. Hitting someone's family is worse than killing the intended person themself.

However, I think it all comes down to WHO started the conflict in the first place. That is the person who should have their ass in a sling. Once you start a fight, battle or war then all bets are off and anything goes. There are no more Marquis of Queensbury rules to follow. In any war it is ALWAYS the innocent who suffer the worst of it. That is a given. At the ground level we all act on pure emotion. For the betterment of all it might sometimes be justified to take out a leader who is leading his people into a losing situation. Things might have been totally different had someone assassinated Hitler in the mid 1930s. Big oil money has played such a huge part in all the Middle East conflicts it is hard to know who is the bad guy and who isn't.

Somebody should have shot Robert Mugabe a long time ago, but he would probably have been replaced by someone equally bad. North Korea, Myanmar, Iran and a bunch of African countries are not exactly hotbeds of democracy and civil rights.

So it sounds like you (and I'm sure you're not alone) empathise with an untold number of Pakistan Talibani and Hamas militants.

With regard to the OP, this is interesting. The topic was going in the direction of political killing vs terroristic killing. Mandela has been mentioned in the same breath as "noble cause" (because his cause, albeit political, was "right"), and I suggest that revenge for family being killed is far more noble than political or religious zealotry.

(I'll just digress here to make a comment on the topic title; Could I suggest that the Animal Farm socialist reference is not really what the intent of the OP was or what we are talking about?...we are actually asking and discussing if there are degrees of terrorism ie, that there are some terrorists worse than others....based on their cause, not based on their MO or their results?)

Political assasination and lack of democracy are a very different kettle of fish.

So it sounds like you (and I'm sure you're not alone) empathise with an untold number of Pakistan Talibani and Hamas militants.

With regard to the OP, this is interesting. The topic was going in the direction of political killing vs terroristic killing. Mandela has been mentioned in the same breath as "noble cause" (because his cause, albeit political, was "right"), and I suggest that revenge for family being killed is far more noble than political or religious zealotry.

(I'll just digress here to make a comment on the topic title; Could I suggest that the Animal Farm socialist reference is not really what the intent of the OP was or what we are talking about?...we are actually asking and discussing if there are degrees of terrorism ie, that there are some terrorists worse than others....based on their cause, not based on their MO or their results?)

Political assasination and lack of democracy are a very different kettle of fish.

Harcourt,

The topic was going in the direction you state, however it was not my intention and it proves an interesting diversion, I wonder if other participants will join the party.

You are again right, it has nothing to the Orwellian doctrine, purely based on one guy's tv programme and another being bumped off.

I never thought I would see the end of the conflict in Ireland and indeed it has some way to go, will there be resolution in the M.E in our time, I doubt it, but I live in hope.

The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

A number of people took exception to this definition, but I stand by it. Of course in the killing of a political target, there is what the Americans call 'collateral damage'; however great this is, and however many people are killed, it doesn't change the objective.

And how does terrorist killings change the objective, they have an objective too, some might even call it a more moral objective than a political bombing?

It's quite an Alien thing for us to comprehend.

But in their mind, they are not the terrorist. In the mind of the extremist they genuinely believe that anybody that does not believe in their faith is a terrorist themselves. A severe threat to their belief and their god that must be eliminated for the safety and security of those they care about.

It's a profound thing, but us much us we think they are wrong, they think they are right in equal or greater measures.

I know you don't want to go down the "one man's terrorist blah blah" moss, and I quite agree. But it's such a difficult thing to escape on this subject.

But let's go back even further, to 1605, and Guy Fawkes.

Another terrorist to this day is still literally celebrated!