Terrorists vs. freedom fighters

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

.

What do you think of this quote?

[edc 0]

If they're fighting against a truely cruel, oppressive government, and don't delibrately mame or kill civilians, they're freedom fighters.  If they delibrately target civilians, or fight against a govt. that's not cruel and oppressive, then're terrorists.

Just my 1/5 of a dime.

[LCD344 0]

Quote[/b] ]truely cruel, oppressive government

every gov is cruel or oppressive somhow ;) :P

nd deres no war were dere were no civie casualties wich takes us 2 oder qoute

"Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich."

LCD OUT

[Major Fubar 0]

"Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich."

I like that quote a lot!

Anyway, I'm considering closing this thread as a potential flame-fest...but...as long as you behave like adults and treat each other with respect, I won't close it.

I AM WATCHING

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

.

What do you think of this quote?

ah yes, the beauty of small quotes that fogs the minds of people.

i ususally don't like to use those cliches since they are to convey specific situation in indirect manner than to be a general truth to people.

basically the problem with it is that it views the world as two sided game, which is not exactly how it goes. i.e. it's not "either you are with us or not", but rather more like "to this particular case, so and so is true."

if the cliche can be used to convey the truth, then anyone's action is justified and vice versa.

[m21man 0]

The poor don't need to resort to terrorism, they've got the power of numbers . Plus, how many rich people do you find in the military??? Very few people enter the military with the stated purpose of "Rapidly gaining large sums of money". Also, since when have terrorists been poor? The large, very dangerous groups have a great deal of financial aid, plus leaders who can be stunningly wealthy (Nobody could seriously call Osama bin Laden poor, not with that huge oil fortune he has ).

[Harnu 0]

To me terrorism is pretty much an informal war being fought against a higher power.  Using unconvential tactics and resourcefulness.  However, they deliberatly attack civilians.  Which is 'just damned dumb' to me.  Now it seems to reinforce our own resolve to put down these terrorists.  OBL had the right idea in attacking commercial infastructure and screwing up trade.  Now it's often blamed for why the US is/was doing bad economically.  The people that we're there are casualties of war.  But it's a different type of war, so we feel different to see thousands of innocent people die, rather than seeing thousands of soldiers die.

Freedom Fighters, often just used by the faction that supports the terrorists.  In this sense, there's really no difference.  For instance, English colonies called the king of England a tyrant.  He called the colonists who fought back rebels.  It's just a different word with the meaning changed to your favor (Whichever one you use), but it all means the same in the end. It's just a different way of phrasing it so that you can seem like the good guy.

Those are my rambling thoughts for the night.  Took a major stick to the head today in gridiron practice(Is that what you Euro's call my football?   ) and not sure if it's on straight right now!

[Gadger 0]

Quote[/b] ]One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

I think this is about media potrail of certain people, although most democratic governments preech freedom of speech this is not true to a certain extent, the population of these countries are spoon fed what they want to hear by the media, if newspaper "a", and news channel "b" label person "x" a terrorist then the majority of the population believe person "x" is a terrorist or criminal or however u want to describe him, but this is selective people, i.e the editors producers and even the government itself deciding how people should be portrayed. Its called propoganda and has been around as long as conflict, u make ur side out to be the good side and the enemy evil, getting full support of ur nation.

IMO the situation in Israel is a perfect example of this, e.g. the suicide bombers, to the Israeli's they are a symbol of terror, to the Palestinian's a symbol of the fight for freedom. Is either side right? How can either be right when both are wrong?

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

*EDIT* Pass me the freakin dictionary  

[Major Fubar 0]

I think people need to separate the reasons behind terrorism and the methodology of terrorism.

- The "reasons" behind terrorism are sometimes noble, sometimes despicable. More often than not, however, it is the last resort of people who have no other way to fight back at the oppressors (either real or imagined oppressors). I often wonder if my country were occupied by a hostile force and our military didn't have the resources to effectively fight back, what lengths might I go to, to strike back at the invaders.

- The "methodology" of terrorism is where most of the noble ideals all fall down. You simply cannot justify killing the innocent civilians of one country to liberate the innocent civilians of another. The underlying reasons that civilian targets are so popular is that they are nowhere near as well guarded as military or key economic/political targets.

But then the logic gets even fuzzier when you factor in things like the personal, political and religious agendas of terrorist leaders.

IMHO, there is no black and white (as Ralph pointed out above). While I do believe that some countries bring terrorism upon themselves with their aggressive expansionist agendas and objectionable foreign policies, there can never be sufficient justification for killing innocent individuals.

[FSPilot 0]

It's basically saying "one man's enemy is another man's comrade". I don't see it as some sort of mind-blowing philosophical epiphany, it's just stating the obvious.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

This statement is unfortunatly, true. But lets not forget that any form of violence against another human being for whatever reason is ultimately, terrorism. A freedom fighter will emerge from the suppression of his people, and fight for his people. A terrorist on the other hand, emerges from nothing short of a racial or idealogical hatred of another people, which, in the case of the world today, the rich fund a kind of twisted education to the poor. Creating monsters who have no concious except to please their superiors by carrying out their dreams.

Many religous schools located in the poorer parts of the world are guilty for this. Drumming endless hatred into young minds to create a danger to western societys. The clergy selectively preach the punishing elements of their holy scriptures, yet do not preach the peaceful passages from it.

Islam is truly a peaceful religion, yet when twisted, it is more dangerous than any gun or bullet. They start kids off young, and by the time they are adults, all they know is hatred for western civilisations. Terrorist's are trained to only hate, and that element of pure hate is what pushes them to sacrifice their own lives in order to kill others.

A freedom fighter is someone who would sacrifice their own life in order to save their fellow comrades. They fight for what they beleive in, not someone else's ideology. Which is precisely what a terrorist is.

[Asmodeus 0]

nd deres no war were dere were no civie casualties wich takes us 2 oder qoute

 

LCD OUT

True LCD, but I think the important question is... Were/are the civilian casualties on purpose?  

If there was no military target whatsoever involved, and it's just killing civilians for their cause.. Then that's not freedom fighting IMO.  That's terrorism.  (IMO, Same thing goes for all governments, if they kill civils on purpose, they're terrorists too)

Asmo

[Schoeler 0]

I think people need to separate the reasons behind terrorism and the methodology of terrorism.

- The "reasons" behind terrorism are sometimes noble, sometimes despicable. More often than not, however, it is the last resort of people who have no other way to fight back at the oppressors (either real or imagined oppressors). I often wonder if my country were occupied by a hostile force and our military didn't have the resources to effectively fight back, what lengths might I go to, to strike back at the invaders.

- The "methodology" of terrorism is where most of the noble ideals all fall down. You simply cannot justify killing the innocent civilians of one country to liberate the innocent civilians of another. The underlying reasons that civilian targets are so popular is that they are nowhere near as well guarded as military or key economic/political targets.

But then the logic gets even fuzzier when you factor in things like the personal, political and religious agendas of terrorist leaders.

IMHO, there is no black and white (as Ralph pointed out above). While I do believe that some countries bring terrorism upon themselves with their aggressive expansionist agendas and objectionable foreign policies, there can never be sufficient justification for killing innocent individuals.  

Fubar, I can't agree with you. Freedom fighters fight for the betterment of their countrymen, or to liberate them from a corrupt or unjust government. Their very name suggests that they fight to achieve the right of national self-determination.

Terrorists fight for a specific ideology, or for money, or out of simple hatred. They may see their enemy as evil or corrupt, but it often isn't to liberate, but rather to punish, or to change a way of looking at or thinking about the world. Look at Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden certainly wasn't oppressed by the United States. In fact he was made rich by America. He simply doesn't agree with our foreign policy, and he thinks this buys him the right to kill innocent civilians in order to voice that opinion. He's wrong, and so are the terrorists.

Freedom fighters are guerillas, revolutionaries. They fight with limited resources, but with the assent and support of a majority of the population. They could not hope for victory or last very long without that assent. Majority support for a conflict is a democratic right. It makes the war legitimate if the freedom fighters do not enjoy the freedom they seek. Look at Locke for that answer. If a government does not uphold the social contract to the people who give it its power, and thus becomes tyrannical in nature, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Terrorists don't fight with the support of a majority of the people. They often do not even fight in their own country or for their own countrymen. They have to hide from the majority of the people who actively hunt them in most cases. Terrorism and terrorist acts are not revolutionary in nature. Terrorists aren't trying to overthrow a government. They are trying to fight a dirty war on the cheap, most often without the popular assent of a revolutionary effort. They do this by targeting the innocent, by generating maximum terror. Their goal is to strike fear into the hearts of the ordinary citizen, enough fear to get them to do the necessary fighting for them through the political arena, and get the policies they want enacted pushed through. Scaring people into giving a majority assent for an essentially unpopular and illegitimate political cause is despicable and criminal, not something to be honored. Its a completely gutless act.

Freedom fighters fight using ambush tactics against a superior military force. That takes courage, and can be an honorable act. They do not deserve to even be considered in the same sentence as cowardly civilian-killing terrorists.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]Islam is truly a peaceful religion, yet when twisted, it is more dangerous than any gun or bullet. They start kids off young, and by the time they are adults, all they know is hatred for western civilisations. Terrorist's are trained to only hate, and that element of pure hate is what pushes them to sacrifice their own lives in order to kill others.

Christianity is truly a peaceful religion, yet when twisted, it is more dangerous than any gun or bullet. They start kids off young, and by the time they are adults, all they have is ignorance for eastern civilisations.

Edit: This isn't a statement against religion in general. It's a statement against the ignorant who think they know more than, or have better judgment than their own god.

[WhoCares 0]

ah yes, the beauty of small quotes that fogs the minds of people.

i ususally don't like to use those cliches since they are to convey specific situation in indirect manner than to be a general truth to people.

basically the problem with it is that it views the world as two sided game, which is not exactly how it goes. i.e. it's not "either you are with us or not", but rather more like "to this particular case, so and so is true."

if the cliche can be used to convey the truth, then anyone's action is justified and vice versa.

How about the quote in my sig?!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I think terrorists can be freedom fighters, and vice versa.

I view terrorists as people or orginisations who are willing to attack and use terror against a civilian population for some kind of gain.

So if someone sets off a bomb in a military base of an army that is occupying their country, they are a freedom fighter.

If they set that bomb off in a civilian population, they are a terrorist, but still might be a freedom fighter.

[Major Fubar 0]

Fubar, I can't agree with you.  Freedom fighters fight for the betterment of their countrymen, or to liberate them from a corrupt or unjust government.  Their very name suggests that they fight to achieve the right of national self-determination.

Terrorists fight for a specific ideology, or for money, or out of simple hatred.  They may see their enemy as evil or corrupt, but it often isn't to liberate, but rather to punish, or to change a way of looking at or thinking about the world.  Look at Al-Qaeda.  Osama Bin Laden certainly wasn't oppressed by the United States.  In fact he was made rich by America.  He simply doesn't agree with our foreign policy, and he thinks this buys him the right to kill innocent civilians in order to voice that opinion.  He's wrong, and so are the terrorists.

Freedom fighters are guerillas, revolutionaries.  They fight with limited resources, but with the assent and support of a majority of the population.  They could not hope for victory or last very long without that assent.  Majority support for a conflict is a democratic right.  It makes the war legitimate if the freedom fighters do not enjoy the freedom they seek.  Look at Locke for that answer.  If a government does not uphold the social contract to the people who give it its power, and thus becomes tyrannical in nature, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Terrorists don't fight with the support of a majority of the people.  They often do not even fight in their own country or for their own countrymen.  They have to hide from the majority of the people who actively hunt them in most cases.  Terrorism and terrorist acts are not revolutionary in nature.  Terrorists aren't trying to overthrow a government.  They are trying to fight a dirty war on the cheap, most often without the popular assent of a revolutionary effort.  They do this by targeting the innocent, by generating maximum terror.  Their goal is to strike fear into the hearts of the ordinary citizen, enough fear to get them to do the necessary fighting for them through the political arena, and get the policies they want enacted pushed through.  Scaring people into giving a majority assent for an essentially unpopular and illegitimate political cause is despicable and criminal, not something to be honored.  Its a completely gutless act.

Freedom fighters fight using ambush tactics against a superior military force.  That takes courage, and can be an honorable act.  They do not deserve to even be considered in the same sentence as cowardly civilian-killing terrorists.

I think we essentially agree on most points, but differ over our dictionary definitions of freedom fighter and terrorist...

If you think my post was okaying terrorist acts you either misread it or I worded myself badly.

[Major Fubar 0]

Many religous schools located in the poorer parts of the world are guilty for this. Drumming endless hatred into young minds to create a danger to western societys. The clergy selectively preach the punishing elements of their holy scriptures, yet do not preach the peaceful passages from it.

And in richer parts of the world, the same ends are achieved by media: movies, news reports, TV series etc.

I don't think I'm exaggerating to say we in the Western World have been "taught" (either subliminally or outright) over the last 50 years or so to think of Arabs and muslims as "the bad guys" (among many other races similarly depicted).

I have mentioned this book in posts before, but I would recommend it to anyone who wants to see a different perspective on the issue: Reel Bad Arabs - How Hollywood Vilifies a People

[ozanzac 0]

And in richer parts of the world, the same ends are achieved by media: movies, news reports, TV series etc.

And I totally agree. But we have the choice to listen to what we want to beleive and not to beleive. For the students of those colleges I was in reference too, they are only taught one perspective. The end result is a narrow minded terrorist.

At least we have the ability to seek out truths rather than be brainwashed with lies. After all, who really listens to what FOX has to say when we know the images they send out to their viewers are twisted.

Ultimately, when the media bends the truth, they create ignorant people. And ignorant people are just as much of a danger to themselves as well as others.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Or, possibly, from the other perspective:

Christianity*is truly an evil and callous religion, that when twisted can be made to look peaceful.

You have to be aware of both possibilities. Perhaps the religion is all about peace and forgiveness. Perhaps it is about loathing and justification for evil. Different factions see it as different thing, and will quite often argue about what is evil and what isn't - EG 'Its ok to stone someone to death because their suffering allows them to go to heaven.

Charismatic and compelling leaders (Adolf Hitler, Bin Laden, etc) can, with the support of others with similar talents (priests, mullahs, the media, etc) control how some people think, leading them to commit horrendous acts that they are convinced are justified. (Spanish Inquisition, 11/9, etc)

Thus you see the danger of the credulous believing everything they are told.

A terrorist is one that fights mainly by scaring or demoralising the 'enemy'- a freedom fighter is one who fights 'honourably' - goes after military targets as priority. Of course, most terrorists describe themselves as freedom fighters. Does that mean they are??

(and does it mean Bush is a terrorist? - TV stations are not military targets)

*/Islam/whatever.

[ozanzac 0]

Or, possibly, from the other perspective:

Christianity*is truly an evil and callous religion, that when twisted can be made to look peaceful.

*/Islam/whatever.

Thats very true. The Crusades for example. Thats why I'm agnostic. (Skeptical of an above one).

But who cares how a religion appears to the outside world. Why teach people to hate other religions? What's it to them? Mayby they hate the diplomatic nature of a country, but that's no reason to call it upon oneself to terrorise the people of that nation.

I don't want to turn this into a religious war or jihad, but exactly what gives some sheiks or preists or whatever to be given such prestigious positions, designed to preach peace and then abuse them. Surely there should be measures designed to prevent such abuse of influence. I suppose some societies are just truly mad or corrupted or don't care so long as the problems don't get pinned on them.

[Major Fubar 0]

Yep, confirmed agnostic here, too

...anyway, as Ozanac pointed out, lets not turn this into a religious debate if we can help it...

[bn880 5]

If they're fighting against a truely cruel, oppressive government, and don't delibrately mame or kill civilians, they're freedom fighters.  If they delibrately target civilians, or fight against a govt. that's not cruel and oppressive, then're terrorists.

Just my 1/5 of a dime.

That sounds to me like if the West disagrees it's terrorism, if the East disagrees they are freedom fighters.

It's all seperated by how strong of a propaganda the government being fought against can generate on their people and other nations.

[bn880 5]

To me terrorism is pretty much an informal war being fought against a higher power.  Using unconvential tactics and resourcefulness.  However, they deliberatly attack civilians.  Which is 'just damned dumb' to me.

So why are the wars cast by NATO and now the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not concerning you, civilians were certainly targetted for morale depravation reasons, especially in a recent conflict that Denoir visited.

Simply put, you can consider those wars to be acts of terrorism on a grand scale. Or you can forget about that term and call everything a war.

[Schoeler 0]

(and does it mean Bush is a terrorist? - TV stations are not military targets)

Where did you get this? Command, Control, and Communication are the top 3 priority targets in any nation's target list during warfare, and have been since the dawn of warfare. Take out their ability to organize, communicate and understand the situation, and you've gone a long way towards winning the war. Achieving air superiority and occupying key pieces of terrain are secondary to those interests if you don't want to march/fly into a slaughter.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys just go around making this stuff up just to support your opinion. Check any manual on warfare from any nation with an organized fighting force and your going to see that TV is a very high priority target my friend.