View Full Version : Terrorist/Freedom fighter?
Hello everybody,
Seeing as everyone has a strong opinion on the matters of the world today, why don't we discuss something totally relevant (albeit pushed to the smaller columns of the tabloids).What do you think is acceptable for somebody to do to secure something they believe is for the best of their family and friends? Now this may be a touchy subject because the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is a very fine line. I'm not looking for examples or anything, I just want to know what people think of what "terrorism" is? Also, is the word "insurgent" always going to strike fear into us???? Does the media have too much control?? Sorry if this seems a little disjointed but I do have a point, somewhere, I'd just like to hear everybody else's opinion on the matter. I fear that George Orwell was all too right, well before his time!!
DM
i belive that defending your home and family and fighting and yes killing when it is your home that is in danger and you are just fighting to save your life.. then no that isnt terrorism.. terrorism to me is when you go to forien shores and attack the peoples that have nothing to do with anything.. and no i am not just speaking of 9/11 it applies to the soliders in iraq that are killing women and children as well... i dont belive we have any right to be there.. that is not our country we have no fight there and we were not asked for help. civil was is oft a reason for freedom fighting when you are fighting an unjust gov. and curruption.. and you go after the ones in power.. not the bystanders and people trying to just live their lives and get by...
Blimey DM you know how to choose a subject dont you?
Im going to hink about this one a bit though.
For me terrorism is when the violence or threat of violence is directed to innocents, i.e. the poor sods just going about their work in the twin towers, the Rememberance Day bombing in Eniskillen or the Madrid Train Bombing. I can see no justification for these types of act.
Following the above logic however, is Britain guilty of terrorist activity for the "area bombing" carried out in WW2 or civillian casualties in Iraq?
I Dunno, over to you guys
I believe terrorism is fighting for an unjust cause, only historians years later can decide who are the terrorists or freedomfighters.
brandy wrote
i dont belive we have any right to be there.. that is not our country we have no fight there and we were not asked for help.
1.We have been asked by democracy groups to intervene in Iraq for years.
2. Poland isn't our country but I think we were right to fight the nazi invader!
History tends to allocate the crown of freedom fighters to the winning side and terrorist to the losing side
ahh but the nazis attacked us and we reppeled them also they were a bit dif. as they were perputating geneside.. ( i know i cant spell) iraq as a nation does not want america and brittian there.. saddam has been captured so dont you think they would be better to be left alone to form their own gov? now im not up to date on all the issue for the past few months so cant say any more on the subject.. of who should and shouldnt be invaded..
ahh but the nazis attacked us and we reppeled them also they were a bit dif. as they were perputating geneside.. ( i know i cant spell) iraq as a nation does not want america and brittian there.. saddam has been captured so dont you think they would be better to be left alone to form their own gov? now im not up to date on all the issue for the past few months so cant say any more on the subject.. of who should and shouldnt be invaded..
I think if you read your history carefully, Germany attacked Poland not us!
ahh but the nazis attacked us and we reppeled them also they were a bit dif. as they were perputating geneside.. ( i know i cant spell) iraq as a nation does not want america and brittian there.. saddam has been captured so dont you think they would be better to be left alone to form their own gov? now im not up to date on all the issue for the past few months so cant say any more on the subject.. of who should and shouldnt be invaded..
I think that as we went in and were responsible for the upheaval we should stay til the mess is sorted out. Should we just throw our hands up and say - ok well we shouldnt have come in the first place well just go now and leave you to it? This is going to be long and painful i think but we are in it now for better for worse and we just have to do the best we can to support the emergence of a new self governing Iraq.
I agree with squidge though,
I wasn't convince with Tony Blair's reasons for going to war with Iraq though I agreed with him about Afghanistan. I thought Iraq was unjustified, it hadn't attacked anyone since the 1st Gulf War and there was certainly no evidence of any recent WMD useage.
So why the sudden change of heart towards Saddam?
Tony just jumped on the idea of WMD to get rid of Saddam without any proof and tried to convince the world he was in a position to attack us. What rubbish!!
All Bush and Blair want are big oil and civil contracts for UK/US companies .
The Cold war was the same, the Warsaw pact never had any intention of invading NATO countries, it was all a big ruse to create a 'demand for weapons ' in NATO weapons factories,
IOW it was the desire for money and jobs using the spread of fear that has made us invade Iraq and to engage in the Cold war arms race!?
The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is how the government of the day views them.
After spending many years in the services in various theatres of war round the world, the British Army have not been angels, from personal experiences.
The ballot box or the bullet, when a minority finds itself in a situation whereby they are ignored or have no political power etc they feel that they have no option but to take drastic action e.g. Suicide Bombings, insurgency etc.
How the government of the day handles the relevant issue, taking into consideration the previous history of the minority in question can and does have devastating consequences to us all.
For example the machinations of the USA (CIA) and their previous dealings with certain terror groups have led to incidences such as 9/11 etc. Germany experienced the same with the Bader-Mienhof gang, Spain - the Basque separatists, the UK with the IRA and infinitum.
Freedom can be an expensive price to pay for one's perceived liberties, how far would you go to protect your liberties if you where in a Palestinian's position?
How far does civil unrest go before it becomes classified as a "terrorist activity"?
Unfortunately even in this day and age, we still have acts of atrocities against nations and cultures even at this time of the year, violence is still alive and well (sadly). The complexities of individual nations/cultures are always perceived from our own intimate point of view, rightly/wrongly. Our democracy should be for us, not for other cultures or nations who find our so-called freedom and way of life alien to them.
Christmas is supposed to be a period of peace and goodwill to all men (and women), unfortunately we need the violence contribution in the scheme of things as to appreciate pleasure (peace and goodwill) one must first experience the pain [loose Machiavellian quote].
The following was posted early on this site:
T'WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS, HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE, MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.
I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY, WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO, IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.
I LOOKED ALL ABOUT, A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS, NOT EVEN A TREE.
NO STOCKING BY THE MANTLE, JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES, OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.
WITH MEDALS AND BADGES, AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT, CAME THROUGH MY MIND.
FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT, IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER, ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.
THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING, SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR, IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.
THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE, THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED, AN AMERICAN SOLDIER.
WAS THIS THE HERO, OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO, THE FLOOR FOR A BED?
I REALISED THE FAMILIES, THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS, WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.
SOON ROUND THE WORLD, THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE, A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.
THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM, EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS, LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.
I COULDN'T HELP WONDER, HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE, IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.
THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT, A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES, AND STARTED TO CRY.
THE SOLDIER AWAKENED, AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA, DON'T CRY, THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE.
I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS."
THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER, AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT, I CONTINUED TO WEEP.
I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS, SO SILENT AND STILL,
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED, FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.
I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE, ON THAT COLD, DARK NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR, SO WILLING TO FIGHT.
THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER, WITH A VOICE, SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA, IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."
ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH, AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT,
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."
A peace-keeping soldier stationed overseas wrote this poem.
Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our Service Personnel all around the world for our being able to celebrate these festivities.
Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us.
What price freedom now.
Ciao,
Dave the Rave :cool:
Ps... A very Merry Christmas to you all too.
The Godfather
24-Dec-04, 15:57
It makes a big difference whose side you are on.
Take William Wallace, to us he was a hero. Fighting for our country.
If you were English however, you thought he was a murderous terrorist. Raiding towns and burning people in churches and the like.
So, was he executed a hero or a murderer?
Is Osama a hero or a murderer?
The Godfather wrote
It makes a big difference whose side you are on.
Take William Wallace, to us he was a hero. Fighting for our country.
If you were English however, you thought he was a murderous terrorist. Raiding towns and burning people in churches and the like.
So, was he executed a hero or a murderer?
He was indeed a true patriot of Scotland, he was also a murderer, and a terrorist.
He was also a loser, but we all love a loser that tries, so that is why he has gone down in history as a freedom fighter and a hero. Not because he actually achieved anything!
The Cold war was the same, the Warsaw pact never had any intention of invading NATO countries, it was all a big ruse to create a 'demand for weapons ' in NATO weapons factories,
I am pretty sure this claim just isn't true. A random reference is here (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b2a3.htm).
This pretty much fits in with decades of NATO policy, with what I have read and heard elsewhere, and have been told by, er, "friends in high places" in the military, in the MoD and even by peace campaigners.
There should be clear lines drawn between 'intention' and a 'contingency plans in the event of....'
The U.S. have drawn up plans to invade Canada in the event of them going 'commy' but that doesn't mean they intend to invade them?!
I think it's a bit more than a case of contingency planning. I couldn't find anything on the web, but I believe that the Soviets seriously considered (and even planned?) first strikes against the West on several occasions. The Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind immediately, and I believe Brezhnev considered a first strike on at least one occasion.
Having said all that, Kennedy's so-called "missile gap" was a piece of nonsense as were many other claims made by Western Leaders during the Cold War. One might argue that the Soviets were forced into making plans for a massive Blitzkrieg into Central Eurpoe because it was the only way they had any hope of "winning" a serious conflict with NATO.
But we are getting off-topic here...
I think it's a bit more than a case of contingency planning. I couldn't find anything on the web, but I believe that the Soviets seriously considered (and even planned?) first strikes against the West on several occasions. The Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind immediately, and I believe Brezhnev considered a first strike on at least one occasion.
Having said all that, Kennedy's so-called "missile gap" was a piece of nonsense as were many other claims made by Western Leaders during the Cold War. One might argue that the Soviets were forced into making plans for a massive Blitzkrieg into Central Eurpoe because it was the only way they had any hope of "winning" a serious conflict with NATO.
But we are getting off-topic here...
Maybe they were trying to show to their own citizens that they were a' force to be reckoned with' thus justifying the communist state?
Maybe they were trying to show to their own citizens that they were a' force to be reckoned with' thus justifying the communist state?
You are dead right there. But they also portrayed the West as the aggressors. I recall visting a children's Peace Camp as a tourist in the Ukraine in the 80s (yeah, I have been about a bit) and being sung a lovely peace song by a bunch of charming kids standing in front of a colourful peace mural. I was the only person in our group who had bothered to learn Cyrillic and a bit of Russian so I was also the only one who realised that the words on the peace mural were little more than anti-American propaganda. Sad but true.
But of course the Warsaw Pact countires didn't tell their citizens that their forces were trained to attack the West. They were the innocent parties standing up against imperial Western aggression.
Oh yeah, and to strike a bit of balance, a few years earlier I had watched Reagan's (in)famous 1983 Star Wars speech on TV after spending the day working at Los Alamos National Lab -- now THAT was scary!
Now I am really off-topic so I shall stop right here
I think Reagan's SDI or Strategic defense initiative was heavy on bluff.
It was designed to knock out incoming missiles with lasers but actually the capability wasn't there. Later, SDI was 'designed' to knock out incoming missiles with SAMs?
How come the discrepancy?
I think the Soviets were duped do you agree?
We are really off the thread now don't you think? :o)
The technology for SDI (aka Star Wars) wasn't there in '83 and I suspect it's still not there.
Were the Russians duped? I suspect not. But Reagan did inflame the arms race and that contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union whether (we?) soggy liberals like it or not.
Terrorism? That's easy. The bad guys are terrorists, we are the good guys, so we are not terrorists by definition.
So, what's my excuse for being on here at this time of night? Easy. Santa brought me a new iPod, so I am ripping my entire CD collection and this is taking a LONG time. I'm currently playing Lionel Richie's "Stuck on You" and it has brought tears to my eyes...
Caledonia
30-Dec-04, 01:58
The term terrorism can most usefully describe method rather than cause.
;)
Caledonia, you clearly aren't "on message". You described what terrorism used to be. Nowadays, it's as I described. Or am I confusing terrorism with insurgentism? Or maybe it's just cynicism?
Caledonia wrote
The term terrorism can most usefully describe method rather than cause.
During WWII, SOE (British agents) taught/used similiar methods as those used by Al Qaeda to wreak havoc on German occupying forces.
Were SOE terrorists or freedomfighters?
If they were terrorists then I am proud of them and what they did for our survival!!
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:52 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i belive that defending your home and family and fighting and yes killing when it is your home that is in danger and you are just fighting to save your life.. then no that isnt terrorism.. terrorism to me is when you go to forien shores and attack the peoples that have nothing to do with anything.. and no i am not just speaking of 9/11 it applies to the soliders in iraq that are killing women and children as well... i dont belive we have any right to be there.. that is not our country we have no fight there and we were not asked for help. civil was is oft a reason for freedom fighting when you are fighting an unjust gov. and curruption.. and you go after the ones in power.. not the bystanders and people trying to just live their lives and get by...
But Britain welcomed the Americans when they came to our aid in world war two - or do you think they should have kept their nose out of that one to? After all, a few innocent germans must have died in that one as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.