| Greetings and welcome to The Football Net. We love talking balls, do you? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Therefore you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, take part in the banter, vote in polls and enjoy fun competitions such as fantasy football and the betting exchange. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join us today to talk balls with us! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Whats the dif between a terrorist and a freedom fighter | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 1 2009, 04:38 PM (572 Views) | |
| Mr Flibble | Jun 1 2009, 04:38 PM Post #1 |
Hamster Molester
|
Whats the dif between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.................is there any dif? One example: Mujahideen. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, the west recognized the Mujahideen as freedom fighters and supported them then with both equipment and finance. 20 years on and the West r now in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen r classed as terrorists. Is it just symantics????? |
 
| |
 |
 
|
| Schumi | Jun 1 2009, 05:35 PM Post #2 |
Dasterdly Chipmunk
|
Good quote - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...loving that quote |
 | |
|
|
| Papa_Lazarou | Jun 1 2009, 06:08 PM Post #3 |
Absolutely Spiffing Fellow!
|
That is very true. There are some circumstances where the term "freedom fighter" couldn't be used but generally it depends which side of the politcal/religious fence you happen to stand on. Media and your own government will play a large part as well. Generally these perceptions are dictated to you by a central source. You are made to think what the goverment/media want you to think. It all a big conspiracy I tells ya 
|
|
|
|
| dutchmcfc | Jun 10 2009, 10:46 AM Post #4 |
disoriented scholar, covered in chocolate
|
I think you have a point, but it's too easy to put it that way completely.... You could say that about a lot of organisations who are by the international society considered terrorists. I think there are a few organisations though that have no real 'freedom cause to fight for and their aim is terrorism... The many cells that make up the amorphous group called Al Qaeda are the prime example of this, whereas taliban could well be considered freedom fighters. I think a terrorist is someone who has as his PRIMARY cause to create as much terror as possible |
|
"We did not cross the border, The border crossed us!" The path is nameless- Lao Tse | |
|
|
|
| KingCole | Nov 14 2009, 06:00 PM Post #5 |
Running through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine
|
Wow I never saw this thread and was going to post one like it myself thank god i went looking for a totally different thread:lol: Now as I was saying growing up in Ireland and haveing a large interest in History and being a republican irish man my views on the Ira would be that they are not Terrorist but Freedom fighters fighting for the independance of their country. When the Franch and Yugoslavian did it during world war two they were called freedom fighters, seems like very similar situations to me  Also groups like the PLO, imagine if tomorrow America said everybody in england f*ck off to cornwall the rest of england goes to muslims they lived here about 2000 years ago for a few weeks, and then england people were just murdered and women raped and schools blowen up, you would be rightly p***ed off and do what there doing what their doing All in all its down to political propaganda that too many people are falling for |
| Anybody but France | |
|
|
|
| Dotty | Nov 14 2009, 06:06 PM Post #6 |
Fearful Naturist
|
That was a long time ago tbh, they became terrorists when they started involving innocents. As long as they fought the British forces they were freedom fighters, once damage goes collateral, then there's a problem. A freedom fighter takes it to the opposing power, a terrorist creates as much damage as possible to get their view across. |
| |
|
|
|
| KingCole | Nov 14 2009, 06:07 PM Post #7 |
|
Running through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine
|
But the British Amry also took out a large amount of civilians, the majority of the IRA being members of the defence forces, so why are they not labled as terroritst? |
| Anybody but France | |
|
|
|
| Dotty | Nov 14 2009, 06:13 PM Post #8 |
|
Fearful Naturist
|
I wouldn't label the everyday soldier as a terrorist, in the end he is only doing his job. The real terrorists are the commanding officers. But as we're aware, soldiers do things they shouldn't this is what, for me makes them terrorists. Perhaps they aren't labelled as such because they are a professional army but from the view of the victims, think of a few of you're own, they are no better than the ones who are labelled terrorists. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Mr Flibble | Nov 14 2009, 07:44 PM Post #9 |
|
Hamster Molester
|
But whats classes as an innocent? The Blitz for example. Was that war or terrorism? It targeted non-combatants. Same can be said of the bombing of Dresden and Berlin. How about nagasaki and hiroshima, again targeting non-combatants, but (at least with Hiroshimi) the argument could be used that it was saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| dutchmcfc | Nov 17 2009, 04:13 PM Post #10 |
|
disoriented scholar, covered in chocolate
|
War is always terrorism imo. Only state-sponsored terrorism. That doesn't mean that the reasons are the same. As soon as you decide to kill for a cause (whatever it is) you are advocating imposing your will through force. In that sense terrorists or freedom fighters or armies are the same. They differ in their aims though. I honestly believe that the term terrorists should apply to anyone who uses terror through violence to reach their goal. Also I doubt that there is a truly objective definition of a terrorist or a freedomfighter. And it depends on your subjective view of the world. History is littered with examples of this, and to take one there is the 80 years war in which the netherlands gained their independence from spain in the 16th century. To the spanish the dutch rebel forces were terrorists and they did act in that way. However to many dutch people the spanish would have been much more hated for trying to suppress the protestant faith that had swept through most of the northern netherlands. They did see the rebels as freedomfighters.It is still one of the main events in our national history. Today things have become a bit more complicated I think. there are now groups that use terror exclusively as the end to they means. Terrorism according to my definition is a strategy, not an ideology. |
|
"We did not cross the border, The border crossed us!" The path is nameless- Lao Tse | |
|
|
|
| footyfan000 | Nov 17 2009, 05:59 PM Post #11 |
Tadpole's Excrement
|
I agree with almost everything you've said. Indeed, the only thing I disagree with you on is the statement that 'war is always terrorism'. When you are the oppressor, yes it is always terrorism. But I think that, as just one example, to call British people terrorists for defending themselves against Hitler is a tad harsh. There is a fine line between war and terrorism, and the war in Afghanistan in my opinion is most definitely terrorism, indeed from both sides. I just think that to say ALL war is terrorism from both sides could be a tad harsh. |
|
|
|
| Inglorious BarcaTed | Nov 17 2009, 08:44 PM Post #12 |
Sausage Warrior
|
Footy I think Dutch might mean there are is terrorism in all wars cos he says it's a strategy. Ofcourse fighting hitler wasn't terrorism but maybe some of the actions during that war were acts of terrorism? I'm not sure so I'll let Dutch respond. I agree with with a lot of what Dutch has said too but I can't stand the term "terror" used. I can understand the term "terrorism". I could have even begun to understand IF they had used the term "war on terrorism", but by calling it a "war on terror" is so meaningless and is ONLY about PR in my opinion. In fact this is also another part of the original question. Nobody can agree on what a terrorist is or what terrorism is and therefore for people like Bush this would have created a debate and that would have been nothing but an inconvernience and a possible hinderance to their master plan. But you change it to the term "terror" - well well well, we all have a common understanding of that term. No need to debate that one, see people getting killed, people getting blown up, and the term "terror" is easily acceptable. At the same time it gets associated with the enemy AND even though the many thousands of civilians who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the Americans, suffered their own terror, who honestly thinks of the term "terror" in that sense today? There's a lot of subtle mind games and manipulation which is actually half the battle. |
| always remember you're unique - just like everyone else | |
|
|
|
| footyfan000 | Nov 17 2009, 09:05 PM Post #13 |
|
Tadpole's Excrement
|
Yes, but are we terrorists for responding to the London Bombings by bombing various industrial and residential areas of Germany, which affected countless civilians not involved in the war? I'm just saying that sometimes the reasons behind what you could consider terrorism are deep: I think it was the right thing to do because it was a major factor in stopping Hitler in WWII, but it was still an act of terror on German citizens. It was just a minor thing I was picking up on really, because a common consensus is that war in itself is terrorism which I largely agree with, but I also think there are a good few isolated instances where there is a fine line between terrorism and necessary defence in war. |
|
|
|
| Inglorious BarcaTed | Nov 17 2009, 09:25 PM Post #14 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
I weren't disagreeing with you, I think you're spot on in saying we have to look at the causes and underlying reasons behind the actions of people that drive them to carry out those actions. We're all quick to judge - sitting here in a free country (debatable I know ) with all amenities at our disposal living a comfortable capitalist existence, a consumer society with no real worries except perhaps how we might pay our bills, and this is the basis on which we set our morals to judge those who took the decision to bomb Dresden for example or those that blow themselves up at checkpoints and cafe's in Israel. We have not got a clue what it's like but we think we have a higher moral compass which is bollox.
|
| always remember you're unique - just like everyone else | |
|
|
|
| Mr Flibble | Nov 17 2009, 09:52 PM Post #15 |
|
Hamster Molester
|
The bombings in Germany werent in direct response to Germany bombing England. The repeated heavy bombing of civilian cities became a "tactic" in WW2. How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Allies had been fire bombing over 60 Japanese cities for nigh on 6 months with little or no losses by the allied forces with an estimated cost of 3 million Japanese cilivians dead. Japan still wouldnt surrender. The main stumbling block is that Japan wanted to keep Emperor as head of state. Truman gives the go ahead for the Atomic Bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima. That cost the lives of around 130,000 Japanese civilians. Far enough u may say, they were warned. Well they were in a way, but they didnt know about the Atomic bomb. Some arguments way that just as much could have been achieved if the bomb had been dropped on a less populated region than Hiroshima. But it was done. Then we come to Nagasaki. Some historians say that after Hiroshima, the Japanese powers to be tried to arrange surrender talks, but Truman had been advised that another bomb was needed, not so much as to make Japan surrender, that could be done with the threat of a 2nd bomb, but as a show of force and warning to Russia. So Fatman was dropped on Nagasaki resulting in another 70,000 civilian deaths. Was that 2nd bomb legal tactics of war or terrorism on massive scale? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Mass Debate Parlour · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:39 PM Jul 30
