Anyone who uses violence and fear to make their point is a terrorist..... The American military used terrorism all the time against the native Americans in the 1800's. The Christian nutjobs who bomb abortion clinic and other things they disagree with are also terrorists So were the Irish Republican Army and other such groups that bombed buildings and murdered civilians in the UK.
Well that was an act of war against a declared enemy who also declared war. Terrorism happens on both spectrums of war and peace, but the US did internationally declare war. Was Hitler a terrorist? He declared war on nations he invaded, but up to that point, he used terrorism to get his point across - Crystalnacht, Burning of the Reich, anti-jewish propoganda. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR.
What really is the difference between an unjust war and terrorism? And how exactly is a single act of terrorism worse than an unjust war? So declaring war makes everything all right?
For me the difference is intent, Hitler wasn't doing it to incite fear but rather for the purpose of ethnic cleansing and scapegoating. To be frank though, what label you choose doesn't matter all that much, if the actions are heinous they should be described as such.
No there's just a distinct difference between the two. War is a declared conflict between side (unjust or not). Terrorism can be an undercover enemy committing an ACT of war while not in an openly declared war. But terrorist acts can also be used in times of war. At least in war you know who your enemy is and what you're dealing with. You don't get any surprises, like 9/11.
Hitler was a populist. He got most of his ideas on progressivism and leftism from Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. His ascent to power was funded by the same elite bankers that fund all monarchies and all governments. Totalitarian, authoritarian, collectivist, and yes a terrorist. But EVERYBODY loved him, until he ALLEGEDLY went on a killing spree (which is of course, to this day a completely unsubstantiated claim)...
Yeah, nobody has ever brought forth empirical evidence that any holocaust took place. And I'm also flattered that you decide to copy me and space out all your lines, however unoriginal and uninformed what you say may be. thanx cutie-pie. They always say,,"Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery".
Hitler WAS a republican, and is related to the Bush klan. Grandpappy Bush and Adolph were good buddies.
This is simply ridiculous. So a policeman who shoots an armed robber is a terrorist according to your simplistic reasoning?
Hitler used terrorism to help take power through the actions of the Brownshirts. Once he was in power, his actions were criminal in terms of human rights and international law but as they were internal they were not terrorism. During WW2, many of his actions were war crimes (see Nuremburg Tribunals). The Muslim scholar is being facetious. He is referring to vast historical actions by peoples and nations rather than to ideologically motivated attacks against non-combatants that are the usual definition of terrorism. If Egypt and Syria had destroyed Israel in the Yom Kippur War and if many atrocities had occurred during that destruction, those would have been war crimes. If Hamas fires off a rockette from Gaza basically at random and by chance it actually kills a couple of Israeli citizens, that is terrorism.. Or another example. If a sniper shoots dead four Israeli soldiers at a military checkpoint, you can make a good case that it is a military action. If the same guy straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up at the checkpoint, killing both the soldiers and six Palestinean civilians, he is a terrorist.
The north of Germany didn't. The Hanseatic cities like Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck couldn't stand a bar of him. He never actually set foot in Hamburg, preferring to travel through Hamburg via highly guarded bomb proof train. He feared assassination. The Hanseatic cities of northern Germany are harbour cities with very strong stevedoring unions that obviously kicked with left feet.
There is an old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also another old say goes that war is diplomacy by other means. But like the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, a just and unjust war is how one views it. There are some who will say no war is just. Wars between nations are not usually considered terrorism. Especially if they are declared wars. Although in any war there will be terror tactics used. For the most part a terrorist is not part of any nation's military and like a spy, wears civilian clothes as to separate him from the military. The thing is if this country was at war with another and that other country used sappers to blow up the world trade buildings it would be considered an act of war or part of war and not necessarily a terrorist act. But what the heck, what is or isn't a terrorist or a terrorist act will vary from individual to individual and not everyone will accept the common defined differences between terrorism and war. So was Hitler a terrorist, he could be define as such but he was more a leader of a nation which was at war. Britain and France declared war on Germany before Germany reciprocated. There is no doubt Hitler was a mass murderer, but I doubt he would fit in with the commonly accepted definition of a terrorist. But this is only my point of view.
