On the other hand, calling Arafat a terrorist is not a form of this stupidity. Arafat is definitely a terrorist. He advocated and helped organize attacks against civilian non-military targets. Decades after founding Fatah, originally a terrorist organization, even Arafat and the organization itself renounced the previous MO that they helped pioneer and popularize, being so undeniably reprehensible that it became a disadvantage to their political goals as it was.
If the hypothetical person you were responding to did provide a definition for "terrorist" that applied to Tony Blair, then, they were using a poor definition of the word.
If the definition of "terrorist" that you imagined I was giving was one you inferred to be "person who advocates and organizes attacks against civilian non-military targets"... then... no. This obviously does not apply to George Bush or Tony Blair. Flawed politicians as they both were, they never did that. Implying that they did, in a way similar to Arafat, is absurd.
You can find my preferred, precise, and superior definition for terrorism on this quiz
However, being a war criminal doesn't make one a terrorist.
On the other hand we can call the majority of the Israel presidents as terrorists with their actions against that poor and destroyed nation
Also Foot and Mouth disease should work aswell for Mad Cow disease. Whilst they are different disseases both of them killed British cows in the 1990's, frustrated me that.
Anyways, not a bad quiz. I guess it is hard to summarize a decade
She let people with curable diseases die in her hospices, because she thought treating those diseases was an affront to God's plans. She thought that suffering existed to provide a platform for compassion, to the point where she valued suffering so highly she would not allow it to be alleviated.
Any doctor who treated their patients as she did would be barred from practising medicine, and likely jailed.
I honestly don't know enough about all of the activities that Mandela was involved in prior to becoming president for me to say he was or was not a terrorist. He may have been. He may not have been. Seriously, I don't know. But in either case, I still have not given a definition for terrorist in this comments section and you're the 2nd person who implied I had. Click on the linked quiz I left above and you can find a good (in fact, the best) definition for terrorism. By this definition, Yasser Arafat absolutely was a terrorist. And this is not controversial amongst serious persons who care what words mean.
I don't know about Mandela. I'd have to read more on the subject.
Alexquiz17 is right that the same logic that would indict Arafat as a terrorist would also indict Mandela. And yet Mandela (correctly) is not called one on this quiz. There are many possible word choices that are similarly neutral on the question of Arafat--"political figure," or "controversial political figure," even, and I think the quiz's current wording is dishonest at best, unless Jetpunk truly wishes to pick sides on this issue.
The careful, deliberate, and fair thing to do would be to use an objective and consistent standard and a precise, carefully-worded definition most consistent with popular historical usage. In every case. Regardless of personal feelings, politics, or popularity.
And, if you do that, then Arafat is definitely a terrorist. When he and Fatah renounced terrorism, they were renouncing the things that they used to commonly do... even Arafat knew that Arafat was a terrorist. Look on the quiz I linked to above and the explanation for the Oklahoma City bombing question (which I do count as terrorism) to see why, actually, McVeigh is closer to not being a terrorist than Arafat is.
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2022
Contact Us | Go To Top | View Mobile Site