if you think a question is stupid, it probably is, i fail to see the discussion here, if the dictionary syas hes a terrorist hes aterrorist, if it doesnt, he isnt, why not use a dictionary next time?
Idkk, I'd like a proper definition. It is aggravating to hear brown people called 'terrorists' as if it were an attack on Islam. I mean, Jewish office holders order the removal of people from their homes and bombing raids in settlements -- but in my textbook they're called 'hardliners' as if to save them from any or all suspicion that what they're doing might be wrong.
If he was a terrorist, which I currently cannot decide, he was not an old-timey terrorist. Assuming he was a terrorist, he was a terrorist decades after other terrorists, say, Russian Revolutionaries. They were terrorists just as much as Osama bin Laden was, but they had a much more noble, if still slightly deluded, cause.
older than that terrorist have been around as long asorganised government, napoleonic europe, french revolution, american cicvil war, medieval europe, col,onial america, acient roman empire the liost goes on and on
Of course, terrorism has existed as long as (or longer than) organized military. The Russian Revolution, however, was such a key point in the evolution of the world, and, combining that with the relevance to Hitler himself, the Russians seemed to be the best example to offer.
Ach. Why did I have to bring this up the day Bin Laden died? I say one thing in one thread and everyone takes the idea wrong. I didn't say he was a terrorist. I said he was an evil man who somewhat resembled a terrorist. God, sometimes I don't know why I even bother, no matter what I say becomes a new trend at times. Ach!
First off, I think you mean *ever* and not *never.* Secondly, people have looked up to him. Nazis did. Why else would he have had such a huge reign over Europe? He needs people to like him to listen to him, doesn't he?
