Who invented terrorism? Was it the jacobins?

They were known for sabotaging Roman equipment especially new armor made in Jerusalem. They also constantly rebelled and used tactics that were gorrilla Esq.

Funny enough when they were first occupied the Romans treated them better the most because they were seen as an "ancient" civilization in relations to the Romans. But then they pissed off Hadrian enough and he genocides them.

Read the bible unrionically, and read about the Kitos War.
The Jews never had a chance, the Germans did.

guy fawkes was long the jacobins

It was more the jews against the jews than the jews against the Romans desu

> Let's burn our entire food supply during a siege so those other jews will fight harder!

People who speak indo-european languages aren't some seperate ethnic group. Is anyone who speaks English an Anglo-Saxon? Indo-Europeans did not replace the original population of Europe. Linguistics groups aren't ethnic groups

I don't think individuals using underhanded tactics to get the upper-hand over larger forces is a particularly new phenomena. Guerilla warfare and other pragmatic strategies have existed for a long time, probably well before recorded history. It would be difficult to peg a particular group as the progenitors.

Fucking Sea Peoples

Underrated post.

>Read the bible unrionically, and read about the Kitos War.

This, I just started really reading into the topic but the Jews in Judea thought that Jesus was gonna be some warlord type Messiah that was going to lead them to victory against the Romans. When they realized that Jesus wasn't /theirguy/ they had him killed and proceeded to chimp out, or at least thats what I gathered, I may be wrong. Now here's what I don't get guys, wouldn't Christianity make Judaism obsolete? Why do so many modern day Christians shill for a group of people whose very faith goes in complete contrast with their own faith?

>people posting conflicts or belligerents that were prior to the 17th century

terrorism as a distinct form of organized violence is a pretty new phenomenon. in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't until very recently that unrestricted warfare against noncombatants became an irregular activity for state actors.

>Why do so many modern day Christians shill for a group of people whose very faith goes in complete contrast with their own faith?

I think you're overstating things a bit here, mate. Christians are nothing more than Jews who believe the Messiah has already come. The New Testament is just another one of the countless relitigations of old Judaic tenets, something that's been going on for literal millennia.

Maybe I just say that because I've been around Evangelicals too much, I grew up in a Pentecostal church that didn't have as flattering of an opinion as most Evangelicals Ive met seem to have, but maybe I'm just overstating again

They believe that the jews are going to cause the biblical apocalypse.

IDK but the Basques unironically should have their own country.

Mah Boi

>tfw 3 of my grandparents are Basque
>tfw neither of my parents know how to speak Basque

I tried learning too, that shit is fucking tough to learn

>Why do so many modern day Christians shill for a group of people whose very faith goes in complete contrast with their own faith?

Because John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield brainwashed some fundie xtians, making them think that Jesus would rapture them into heaven if Jews went back to Palestine and rebuilt their temple, and that way of thinking spread to many Amerifat churches.

yeah but in a good way

never forget that christianity is a millennarian death cult

spbp
surface level yes, but it was the jews who got the Americans to invent terrorism.

It's not a death cult. They just think the world is going to end at some point in time

Because the jews control Evangelical Churches

The world will end at some point. That's a fact.
Hopefully humans will master intergalactic space travel by then, or our legacy is fucked

Let's say modern terrorism.

The Black Hand - Serbia

media
if your actions cant be immediately noticed by millions of people across the world then it cant work

anarchists, i suppose.

Guerrilla war may have existed for a long time but its effectiveness was limited until armies started to care about things like not massacring entire villages at a time.

This is unironically true - the zealots

This. Terrorism doesn't work when the reponse to terrorism is "kill everyone"

The first recognizably modern terrorist groups, that is, with the cell structure, and the bombings, and with the not controlling territory, and existing specifically to carry out terrorist acts, were Narodnaya Volya in Russia and the Irish Republican Brotherhood in Ireland.

The Narodniks were actually good enough to kill the Tsar and ruin Russia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_dynamite_campaign

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya#Assassination_of_Tsar_Alexander_II

That's literally the ideal conditions for terrorism.

Every single time you kill an enemy soldier, it gets you dozens of new recruits, from the various orphans and refugees of the reprisal campaigns.

Croatian partisans in Yugoslavia used to call town meetings and get all of the local villagers gathered in one place, and then have one of their own guys tip off the security forces that there were insurgents in the village.

When the fuzz arrived, they'd have a couple of hidden guys pop a few shots off to get the government forces to start shooting.

Then once the bloodshed was over, the partisans would explain to the villagers that the government would kill them all for firing on government forces, and their only hope of survival was to join the guerrillas.

It worked pretty well.

Terrorism isnt a real thing, all governments and armies are terrorists.

Nothing is real.

All is semantics.

Life has on meaning.

ur a faget

>you left orphans and refugees alive
See there's your first problem, you didn't actually kill EVERYONE

is there a link between those terrorists and anarchism?

Narodnya Volya were dedicated anarchists.

The Fenians were Irish nationalists.

The KKK are also considered contenders for "first terrorist group" by some, but not everyone thinks they qualify.

The Germans literally killed 25% of the population of Poland, and they still had partisans trying to kill them and consuming irreplaceable manpower until the very end of the war.

understood, thanks

The original incarnation of the KKK definitely were, the 2nd not so much, and the 3rd is mostly negligible.

>25%
Are you even trying?

I just think labelling someone terrorist is just political propaganda, its pretty much meaningless apart from saying "these are the baddies". Its pretty much impossible to come with an agreed upon definition and i think its use should be retired for more informative descriptors. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter after all.

I don't think anyone else operated on their level user.

The closest you'll find is the Conquistadores, and they had smallpox doing most of the work.

LONG LIVE THE TRUE KING JAMES II

Also the Spanish weren't doing it on purpose, hence why it doesn't really count as a genocide. The Mongols intent was entirely to completely wipe out to the last man any group that didn't submit.

Well, the generally used description of terrorism is "intentional violence against noncombatants to achieve political goals by frightening the civilian population" or something like that.

The term was actually coined by English writers to describe the reign of terror during the French Revolution.

So you can objectively (or as objectively as you can define anyone as being anything) define somebody as a terrorist if their full time job is to attack noncombatants for political purposes.

This would, of course, mean that the caravan of death in Chile, and the Salvadorian Treasury Police, and many other government officials were also terrorists, but that's honestly a pretty accurate description of what they did for a living.

What if you enact intentional violence against noncombatants purely for funsies?

Go to bed Nguema

Then you're an asshole