Were there Western terrorists in
1) the 17th century
2) the 18th century
3) the 19th century
?
/pol/tards need not reply.
>>809186
define terrorist, because for example poland was partitioned in late 18th and that partisans were 'terrorist' for germans and russians.
>>809186
Well western governments didn't just invent all those anarchist bombings. Then in the 20th century you had Baader-Meinhoff and all those other USSR sponsored commie terrorist groups.
>>809228
20th century had a whole bunch of terrorists in Europe in general:
>RAF
>Red Brigades
>ETA
>IRA
>EOKA-B
>OUN, arguably
terrorism begun in 20th century. this question is wrong.
Guy Fawkes and the rest of the Gunpowder Plot people could easily be described as terrorists
>>809186
Yes
Yes
Yes
>>809257
In history of West Eurasia, life history of Emperor Alexander II of Russian Empire claim terrorism was before 20th century.
Was attempt on imperial life was made by a terrorist Dmitry Karakozov into 4 April 1866, an another attempt by a terrorist Antoni Berezowski 25 May 1867, and an another attempt by a terrorist Alexander Soloviev 2 April 1879 and an another attempt by a terrorist Stepan Nikolayevich Khalturin 5 February 1880 and another attempt by a terrorist Ignacy Hryniewiecki 1 March 1881, in day when Emperor had plan agree project of Constitution by Loris-Melikov.
>>809186
terrorism was impractical until the 19th century when you started to have anarchist bombers and the like
guy fawkes is a good example, it shows enormous amount of gunpowder required and the paranoia of a typical authoritarian state at the time
>>809257
Eh, terrorism the act is older than war is.
>>809186
Ireland
Ireland
Ireland
Can't remember the specifics atm but I believe there was some Dutch guy who blew himself up outside of a parliament building during the Napoleonic era. Could be mistaken though, maybe some anon is more knowledgeable . And as has already been mentioned, the gunpowder plot is pretty much a text book example of terrorism. Also I suppose that the counter-revolutionary white terror during the late 1700s in Paris could qualify.
>>809312
>terrorism was impractical until the 19th century when you started to have anarchist bombers and the like
A bunch of Muslim Hobos managed just with fucking knives.
>>809326
Is assassination terrorism though?
>>809314
terrorism is a buzzword and have no meaning
>>809325
>In the 19th century and first half of the twentieth century, Dutch nationalists regarded Van Speijk as a hero. This resulted in a royal decree ) issued by King William I pronouncing that as long as the Dutch Navy exists there will always be a ship named 'Van Speijk' to preserve his memory.
>>809344
It has. The problem is, people love stretching it, and it does overlap with guerrilla warfare to a certain degree.
>>809352
That wasn't the incident I was thinking of, but still bad ass though. I believe the one I'm thinking of was during the Batavian period, but it might have been as early as the 80yrs war, I tried Googling, but "Dutch suicide bomber" is not exactly an easy query.
>>809186
>>809355
As someone with a habit of using really broad definitions, where does terrorism stop and war begin?
Is my definition plausible? Currently, my definition of terrorism is "deliberately inciting terror to make individuals submit to political agenda against their beliefs (which does not include using fear to convince people of a belief)," whereas war is just using "force to make individuals unable to enact their beliefs or claim certain objectives". In other words, terrorism is saying "if you try to and/or actually do take this land, I'll blow people up!" whereas war is blowing people up whenever they get too close to the land to physically prevent them from having it. Is that about right?
>>809186
A good example of terrorists would be the American Continental Army.
>>809240
>IRA
Ye don't forget the loyalist paramilitaries and UK government colluding with them.
>>809407
Technically killing combatants according to internationally recognized guerrilla warfare rules (which is a whole new can of worms since guerrillas have to wear same uniforms and have rank marks etc etc) in order to achieve political goals is not terrorism, killing non-combatants in order to achieve political goals is terrorism.
I'm not sure where politicians stand here but I think killing them might not be considered terrorism. Taking them hostage is another story.
With your example, threatening to blow soldiers up is not terrorism, but threatening to kill civilians certainly is.
>>809501
So if everyone were to literally combat terrorism, it would cease being terrorism? That's kind of funny.
>>809186
One can argue about the similarities of Civil Wars and Revolutions, and one can frame one side (or one part of a side) of a Revolution as a Terrorist. You need to give a robust definition of terrorist before we can analyse any further.
I'm comfortable saying Oliver Cromwell was a religious extremist (Puritans were considered extreme, even with the stronger faith of the time), but to say he was a terrorist would be getting into stupid, anti-authoritarian "hurr durr America are the REAL terrorists" retardation. However, spreading terror as a deliberate (state) action did happen.
>dirty dumb roundhead scum.
>>809186
Anarchists in France and Russia in the 1880s and 1890s.
TIGR in the 1920
>>809337
Yes because the most horrifying thing about Assassins is that after doing the deed, the Assassin will stand there waiting to be cut down and smiling.
Because the nigga was brainwashed into doing that shit and getting free entrance to Paradise.
>>809240
>The RAF
aside from following orders to bomb enemy towns what wrong did they do?
>>809186
Of course. it's called state-terrorism, one of the oldest form of terrorism. inb4
>le monopoly of power
meme
Go ahead and call me retarded but I'd say Lincoln's assassination was an act of terrorism. Booth chose to kill him in public, then showed his face to the crowd and yelled "Allahu Akbar", I mean "sic semper tyrannis."
