Lacus & pacifism: Goals and Intentions

[aeriolewinters]

IIRC, the legal definition of terrorism is:
'the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.'

If you take that definition in consideration, a wide category of candidates can be retained - and by then Bin Laden and co. will only appear as a leaf lost in a forest. And small, everyday cases will start popping around faster than baby rabbits after mating season.

That's why you need the fundamental, logical essence of the term. And by the way, Lacus would be far from being a terrorist because, even Gil uses her influence as a weapon.

People can easily tell you that your definition could apply to our old Capitalist Friends, the americans... They use intimidation, and force to beat the crap out of weaker countries... While looking good in the int'l commitee.

Originally Posted by Webster defines terrorism as:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

And what do you mean legal definition? Legal definitions are inconsistent and cannot support logical arguements since you could ammend it anyway. It's just like saying that Coppernicus is a Heretic in today's church.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Because she only fights for the "status quo"? She never really takes open initiative, there's no way someone like her can be considered a revolutionary. Both times she supported battle, it was to fight against people who wanted to change the world somehow, trying to keep the world as it is. Obviously, I'm not saying that their changes would be good ones.

That isn't necessarily true. Lacus didn't so much fight for things as much as she fought against people, namely the Chairmen of PLANT (and to a much lesser extent, Azrael and his ilk). Since they controlled the governments of PLANT, and Lacus' aim was to overthrow that government in favor of a more accommodating one, I think that "revolutionary" is a very apt description. Note that the operative meaning of revolutions is that it is an attempt to overthrow the government by it's people. Since Lacus has always technically been a PLANT citizen, she qualifies quite well.

Originally Posted by Renegade334

If you take that definition in consideration, a wide category of candidates can be retained - and by then Bin Laden and co. will only appear as a leaf lost in a forest. And small, everyday cases will start popping around faster than baby rabbits after mating season.

A terrorist's method d'operandi has to be terror, or else the term is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Renegade334

The reasoning wouldn't exactly be that - terrorists coerce people into adopting their social or political beliefs. Lacus promotes the freedom of choice while not using force or violence of their own volition, but rather as a reaction to an already present situation (battle between EA, Orb and ZAFT).

Correction: terrorists coerce people into adopting their social or political beliefs through the use of terror.

[shaolo]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why would you say that revolutionary is not a fit descriptor for Lacus?

For one thing, she hasn't brung anything new to the tabe of CE and as for overthrowing two of ZAFT's laders, I think the word rebel probaby fit her more.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by shaolo

For one thing, she hasn't brung anything new to the tabe of CE and as for overthrowing two of ZAFT's laders, I think the word rebel probaby fit her more.

Contrary to popular belief, being a revolutionary does not necessarily require one to bring anything new to a country. There is also no real functional difference between a rebel and a revolutionary.

[aeriolewinters]

For one thing, she hasn't brung anything new to the tabe of CE and as for overthrowing two of ZAFT's laders, I think the word rebel probaby fit her more.

Again, let us consult webster:

Originally Posted by revolutionary used as an adjective

Main Entry: 1rev·o·lu·tion·ary
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting a revolution <revolutionary war> b : tending to or promoting revolution <a revolutionary party> c : constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change <revolutionary styling> <a revolutionary new product>

Originally Posted by When used as a noun

Main Entry: revolutionary
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ar·ies
1 : one engaged in a revolution
2 : an advocate or adherent of revolutionary doctrines

[Demongod86]

I'd hardly call someone that snoozes away for two years and then reacts only when a situation gets personal a revolutionary. I say she's more of a girl Teddy Roosevelt. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. And nothing is bigger than the sticks Kira and Athrun have (I'm talking about their gundams...) Frankly, Kira and Lacus were ready to let the world go to hell till they were personally threatened. And after that, they were more or less cleaning up Cagalli's mess. But hey, Durandall just had to go all Emperor Palpatine on us and try to Death Star Orb...and try to do away with Lacus, so what could she do?

Well, aside from pwning him in a bright array of rainbow colors dominated by an intoxicating pink...

What I'd call Lacus isn't terrorist or freedom fighter or thief or revolutionary or any of that jazz...I'd just call her a well-insured girl that has the capability to defend herself. And she did just that, no more, no less. If Durandall wasn't a fool and didn't smack the figuaritive beehive, he would have been left alone...Lacus was perfectly A-OK with Mia being Lacus...just Dully went overboard.

And hell, he shoulda learned from Patrick Zala's mistake...nobody crosses Lacus and lives!

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

I'd hardly call someone that snoozes away for two years and then reacts only when a situation gets personal a revolutionary. I say she's more of a girl Teddy Roosevelt. Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

A revolutionary isn't defined by what she does before she takes action, but by the kind of action she takes when she does so. For example, the first Ming emperor was both a monk and a beggar before becoming a leader against the Mongols. If Teddy Roosevelt went on to overthrow the government of the U.S., then he'd be a revolutionary as well.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

What I'd call Lacus isn't terrorist or freedom fighter or thief or revolutionary or any of that jazz...I'd just call her a well-insured girl that has the capability to defend herself.

Labels such as revolutionary and the like are only used for the ease of classification. As long as they're accurately applied, there's no harm in using them.

As an aside, I don't think that Lacus has all that much trouble defending herself.