"Tyson Fury" and his chances of Heavyweight Glory

Any act of violence has the quality of 'terror', but 'terrorism' has a specific meaning because it's wedded to politics.

A terrorist act is a illegitimate & unlawful assault on a government or State - the Rising falls within that category because the IRB utilised acts of violence and destruction to pursue a political objective against the legitimate government and State governing Ireland.

 

No it isn't, you've just pulled that definition out of your ass. Any attack on any state could be considered terrorism then. How can an assault on a state be legitimate and lawfull ffs.

You're definition makes everyone from the french resistance to the Americans in their war for independence terrorists.

It would mean any attack/rising/battle within an occupied country in history is an act of terrorism.

A rising is not terrorism since it doesn't terrorize anyone, it isn't carried out with the purpose of intimidating or terrorizing anyone. It is simply an attack on the state and an attack on the occupation of a country.

 

"Ok so no"? I don't think you understood my reply - you weren't comparing like for like; it was a vacuous comparison.

The American War of Independence was an organised rebellion / insurrection by an unrecognised unconstituted government (First Congress). Rebellions aren't the same as acts of terrorism - the Irish situation eventually mushroomed into a rebellion during the course of the Anglo-Irish War, but the Rising itself in 1916 - a distinct event - was mere terrorism.

 

Pretty standard definition - why don't you look and read instead of blathering because what you hear doesn't confirm your own biases and prejudices?

The reason, my friend, that ALL attacks perpetuated by States aren't considered acts of terrorism is because they're enacted by legitimate and constituted States or Governments.

 

legitimate is not the word i would use for any british administration on the island of Ireland

in my eyes the IRB..IRA..PIRA had the ligitimate right to take up arms against an army of occupation... in the same way any country would against a foreign invader.. my father and grandfather before him were both in the IRA.. so im i obviously c things from a different perspective than u... as do most nationalist from the 6 counties:good

 

No its not, you've just made it up. It is your definition pulled out of your ass. A terrorist act has to inspire terror and intimidate, it isn't any attack on a state that is occupying a country ffs.

I didn't say anything about an act carried out by a state, I said an act carried out within an occupied country against the occupying state. As in all the situations I listed.

 

Well that's just a subjective stance with not an iota of objectivity. It says more about your politics than actual history.

Sure, in YOUR subjective eyes. Nobody cares about subjective meanderings, We're talking history here, not personal caprices and whims.

 

i understood it competly ...ur changing the parameters of ur argument to suit ur opinion... but thats ok...we all do it:good

 

They're honoured in the Republic of Ireland - a nation that was tenuously borne from that initial act of terrorism; their beatification says nothing about the nature of the Rising as it pertained to the then legitimate government, which was the British government and the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland.

As an aside, they're honoured more so because of the romanticism associated with them and they're act, whether or not they're the proximate cause for the rebellion is debatable, and actually, not too many people would say it is. More to do with the conscription crisis in the following years - but that's by the by, as I say, it's a powerful origin myth.

 

This is about boxing but how to you think the British came to be in someone else's country, pure terrorism. How can anyone from Ireland be objective? You haven't a notion what went on here. The British military and political establishment had no right to be in Ireland, still don't, give me one reason why British rule has any legitimacy in Ireland? By the way, i though Fury was great last night, a wee bit **** at the start then done a thoroughly professional job on Cunningham.

 

Yes I defined it my own words - if your prejudice and nascent need for confirmation bias is clouding your mind, then why not have a little look at the various definitions that are free on encyclopedias, like wikipedia or just a general, generic dictionary definition?

As for you second point, I've already addressed that - insurrections & rebellions are not the same as acts of terrorism. The Irish situation did eventually mushroom into a full scale rebellion, but the 1916 Rising itself - a distinct event - was an act of mere terrorism.

 

Putting a moronic smile as an adjunct to your statement doesn't validate your point. If I've changed the goal posts then demonstrate it.

 

history is written by the victor:deal... do u think if hitler had been victorious... the history books would be still demonising him or would they be lauding him:good

 

Please demonstrate and stipulate why Hitler is relevant to this discussion.