davidm Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 A very emotive topic, I know, but the cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" springs to mind. Also, in some instances, who is to say what is terrorism and what is guerilla warfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 A very emotive topic, I know, but the cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" springs to mind. Also, in some instances, who is to say what is terrorism and what is guerilla warfare? If you talk about terrorism like 9/11, no it is not. If we talk about a country that was attacked, invaded and occupied by a superior foreign military force, without any declaration of war and against all international opinion and rules, I might concede some justification. Just imagine, during the occupation thousands and thousands of people are killed. Your family is wiped out as, let's say colateral damage. You, as a sole survivor join some people to knock down the agressors tanks, bomb their occupation force a.s.o. I would not call them terrorists. These people perhaps are vigilantes but they use the only way available to defend their country and their freedom. So perhaps they are freedom fighters although the agressors occupying the land, would call them terrorists. One example comes to my mind. Occupied France during 2nd WW. Defeated by German forces and the people formed La Resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Terrorists are, plain and simple, mindless scum. They are the type that blow up tourists in Bali, blow up innocent women & children in Israel & run airplanes into tall buildings. There's a big difference between a "freedom fighter" and a piece of sh1t that kills innocent people. Freedom fighters are those resistance units in France during WW2, Algerians opposed to continued French presence, the NVA & Viet Cong etc. George Washington was a freedom fighter. Yassar Arafat is a Terrorist. Boon Mee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Freedom fighter and Terrorist is used according to what side you are on and who the winner was, for the winner writes history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjan jb Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 There's a big difference between a "freedom fighter" and a piece of sh1t that kills innocent people. Freedom fighters are those resistance units in France during WW2, Algerians opposed to continued French presence, the NVA & Viet Cong etc.Boon Mee What about the Iraqi resistance ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjan jb Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 The day terrorists target the Eyesore (Eiffel) Tower, terrorism will be justified. In the name of Architecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 There's a big difference between a "freedom fighter" and a piece of sh1t that kills innocent people. Freedom fighters are those resistance units in France during WW2, Algerians opposed to continued French presence, the NVA & Viet Cong etc.Boon Mee What about the Iraqi resistance ? Iraqi resistance is being fueled by those jihadist (sp) scum from Iran, Syria etc and therefore fall directly into the catagory of 100% Terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkstoney Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 The usage of terms such as terrorist/terrorism/terror/rebel/guerilla/freedom fighter etc. only proves that somewhere in your minds you agree that some level of violence is acceptable in the world. Violence is here to stay. Are you capable of violence and can you justify your violent actions? Of course you are and you can. We can justify things all day long. People justify their alcoholism and drug abuse; their spousal abuse; the bad driving habits; their smoking; their religious zeal. I think a more appropriate question is this: "Is violence ever acceptable?" Of course, like all other capabilities granted to us of free will, our positions are subjective. Violence is also in the eye of the beholder. If you see unacceptable levels of violence in your world then you must act accordingly and spread the good word of peace originating from whatever source befits you. "George Washington was a freedom fighter. Yassar Arafat is a Terrorist." --Boon Mee Fidel Castro was a freedom fighter. Ariel Sharon is a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjan jb Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 "George Washington was a freedom fighter. Yassar Arafat is a Terrorist."--Boon Mee Fidel Castro was a freedom fighter. Ariel Sharon is a terrorist. Hugo Chavez is a freedom fighter. G. W. Bush is a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Some 20 years ago I heard the word 'freedom fighter' for the first time. It was used on Taiwan for every mainland pilot who arrived in his PRC-plane. He was well rewarded in gold according to a 'pricelist'. A MiG 21 got better reqards than a Sukhoi (?) jet. Could join immediately the local airforce, promoted 2 ranks up. The same freedom fighter was called a traitor back home and his family suffered from repercussions. Unfortunately, no freedom fighter went the other way, until a Taiwan-pilot took a Boeing 747-cargo-plane to Beijing (to see his aging father!) and two mainland guys arrived in a hi-jacked passenger plane. Jail terms on both sides, and the freedom fighter story was stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjan jb Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 There's a big difference between a "freedom fighter" and a piece of sh1t that kills innocent people. Freedom fighters are those resistance units in France during WW2, Algerians opposed to continued French presence, the NVA & Viet Cong etc.Boon Mee What about the Iraqi resistance ? Iraqi resistance is being fueled by those jihadist (sp) scum from Iran, Syria etc and therefore fall directly into the catagory of 100% Terrorist. The Iraqi Resistance is mainly local and nationalist (Foreign fighters are a minority. this information has been provided again and again by American officers currently in duty in Iraq), so I guess that it's entitled to the name "freedom fighters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 There's a big difference between a "freedom fighter" and a piece of sh1t that kills innocent people. Freedom fighters are those resistance units in France during WW2, Algerians opposed to continued French presence, the NVA & Viet Cong etc.Boon Mee What about the Iraqi resistance ? Iraqi resistance is being fueled by those jihadist (sp) scum from Iran, Syria etc and therefore fall directly into the catagory of 100% Terrorist. The Iraqi Resistance is mainly local and nationalist (Foreign fighters are a minority. this information has been provided again and again by American officers currently in duty in Iraq), so I guess that it's entitled to the name "freedom fighters". You haven't been watching the Clinton News Network (CNN) lately or you have discovered that the resistance in Iraq is primarily fueled by outside elements. Whether Al Queda, Syrians or Iranians - these guys want to see a civil war erupt & destroy any possibility of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjan jb Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 There's a big difference between a "freedom fighter" and a piece of sh1t that kills innocent people. Freedom fighters are those resistance units in France during WW2, Algerians opposed to continued French presence, the NVA & Viet Cong etc.Boon Mee What about the Iraqi resistance ? Iraqi resistance is being fueled by those jihadist (sp) scum from Iran, Syria etc and therefore fall directly into the catagory of 100% Terrorist. The Iraqi Resistance is mainly local and nationalist (Foreign fighters are a minority. this information has been provided again and again by American officers currently in duty in Iraq), so I guess that it's entitled to the name "freedom fighters". You haven't been watching the Clinton News Network (CNN) lately or you have discovered that the resistance in Iraq is primarily fueled by outside elements. Whether Al Queda, Syrians or Iranians - these guys want to see a civil war erupt & destroy any possibility of democracy. I don't trust leftist wackos. I get my news from the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidm Posted February 23, 2004 Author Share Posted February 23, 2004 The French resistance is a bad example of freedom fighter. Far more Frenchmen supported the Nazis than fought against them. Around 70% of the population actively collaborated with that evil regime. If it wasn't for the threat of communists taking over the country in 1945, France would have been indicted along with Germany for war crimes. Therefore, by definition, those brave French men and women that did stand up to the Nazis were terrorists. Personally, I think that's wrong as it took enormous courage to stand up to such monstrous people as the Nazis. I don't trust leftist wackos either. My sources tell me most of the violence committed in Iraq is the work of arabs who are not Iraqis plus remnants of the Baathist regime who are trying to regain power. As that group used violence when it was a government, it's hardly surprising they are continuing in the same vein. To call those Iraqis and their allies freedom fighters has to be a leading candidate for most stupid comment of the year, if not the decade. Then again, calling Bush a terrorist is not far behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the cynic Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 To call those Iraqis and their allies freedom fighters has to be a leading candidate for most stupid comment of the year, if not the decade. Then again, calling Bush a terrorist is not far behind. I think these comments were meant to show that everything is relative. But not suprisingly, it fell into deaf ears. The Iraqi resistance is nationalist. They just want to get rid of what they see as an army of occupation. We would the same thing if our respective countries were occupied by a (Muslim) army, would'nt we ? Davidm, where did you find those figures: "around 70 % actively collaborated" ? As far as I'm concerned, I think that it would be more accurate to say that 70 or 80 % passively collaborated. But it doesn't make a difference: they were silent there guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the cynic Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Sorry for the typo: "They were silent therefore guilty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie-Porgie Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Would it be incorrect to say that terrorists mostly attack innocent civilians. Freedom fighters mostly attack Government and Military targets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Would it be incorrect to say that terrorists mostly attack innocent civilians. Freedom fighters mostly attack Government and Military targets? That's probably the sanest way of putting it, although there's some blurred lines there as well. Collateral damage is an unfortunate thing, but sometimes unavoidable. However when an Israli fighter bombs an apartment block full of innocent families because they 'believe' a militant leader is hiding there, is that any less terroristic than bombing a bus? A neighbor of ours when I was growing up said he had never forgiven himself for what he had done during WW2. He was a bombadier in the RCAF, and says he personally pulled the lever that dropped bombs intentionally targeted civilians to "reduce civil moral". In my opinion the allied bombing campaign was one of the most underated war crimes of WW2, but then of course, we won. The technology was there for precision bombing, yet only the Americans used it. The RAF, and RCAF opted to carpet bombing night raids. By what I think are reasonable standards, this should be regarded as terrorism, as it's sole purpose was to terrorize and demoralize. cv p.s. welcome back gp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie-Porgie Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Thanks for the welcome back. I did make one small mistake in my wording. I meant to say "target", rather than "attack". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now