Depends on your definition of legitimacy. Hitler's persecution of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled etc. was not indiscriminate, it was very targeted and specific. Does that mean by your definition that Churchill was a terrorist and Hitler was not?
Terrorism : the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. That is the OED definition. I guess anyone opposing any regime will be unofficial or unauthorised by that regime, but not necessarily by the organisation they represent. Where should the line be drawn? When does the end justify the means, and who decides?
well there was a declared war of 2 nations. dresden was a legitimate target, major munitions and communications centre. by definition above it doesnt meet terrorism criteria. of course international law courts decide, as well as the definition of terrorism you also have to look at the definition of War and what that allows government's to do. and who can legitimately start and be involved in a war according to international law. which is evolving as time passes
Very nice (eventually) 90 year old black man - did a helluva lot for race relations - has died. End of. FFS
Absolute Drivel. The entire city of Dresden did not meet these criteria, neither did Berlin, London, Coventry, Newcastle, Birmingham etc. You previously stated that "indescriminate" was a key component in the definition of a terrorist. Your definitions also seem to be indescriminate.
So, are you saying his achievements are not worth commemorating? In your view, whose would be? Why would anyone on here be bothered about your trials and tribulations if judged on the same basis (which I do not)?
Phill, there is nothing sad about that, we live in a democracy. Our differing views would not stop me buying you a pint if we ever met, or expecting you to buy me two or three in return !!!!!!!
You are entitled to your view of my trials and tribulations, of which I don't expect you to have one and that's your prerogative; ...........likewise, I'm entitled to mine..........besides I couldn't say much more than he did a helluva lot for race relations.....after all he was a terrorist before he became recognised as a nice man. And if you want me to progress it, if he hadn't been imprisoned, how much longer would he have been a terrorist for?
......and I suspect that you amended your original post because you know it was factually incorrect. Still does not alter the fact that we don't agree. I'm fine with that.
I happen to have a great deal of respect for you based on your postings on here about what you have been through. My point (badly made), was that it is easy for those not close to the true facts to misinterpret (including myself). What I am struggling with, is how we distinguish between terrorists and statesmen, and when one becomes the other, and how we define them based on a set of whose values?
you need to research definitions of war and terrorism and reconcile one against the other. you dont come across as thick but now you have me wondering (post ammended to keep post facts historically correct for hungry hippo)
