One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.......really?

#1
The old saying has it that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, the implication being that it's purely a matter of perspective. I'm not so sure.

Surely the definition........

Click here to read more:- http://idontquitefit.blogspot.no/2013/12/one-mans-terrorist.html
 

BodyButter

Vital Football Legend
#2
It's interesting that the term 'freedom fighter' is almost obsolete now that the Atlantic axis no longer needs pawns to fight wars for them.

I read that only 2% of America's drone strikes in Pakistan have been against 'high value targets'. The other 1,000 or so victims have been innocent bystanders or those profiled by the yanks as potential terrorists.

I'm afraid the real terrorists are those who represent us.
 
#3
BodyButter - 6/12/2013 09:07

It's interesting that the term 'freedom fighter' is almost obsolete now that the Atlantic axis no longer needs pawns to fight wars for them.
A good point. Who is it that writes the history books? Or rather, in today's world, controls the media.
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#4
If we were occupied in the 30's by the Germans would those fighting to liberate Britain be terrorist or freedom fighters?

Mandela et al were fighting the oppressor surely? They were fighting to liberate their country.

Interesting semantics really.

As I'm sure Clive would agree, quite the dichotomy
 
#5
For me it's not a question of whether someone is a terrorist or not, it's more a question of how legitimate terror tactics are and how far one can legitimately take it.

Take Northern Ireland for example, I'm pretty sure the IRA and their supporters would argue that they were fighting an oppressor but they would also probably agree that they used terror tactics. A case could be made for using these tactics in Northern Ireland but how can they possibly justify the attacks on civilians on mainland UK?

Mandela used terror tactics too, most seem to think it was OK now as he was fighting an oppressor, but did any innocents get harmed, people who were not oppressing and if so, is that acceptable? How many people accept Winnie Mandela as a heroin? No nearly as many. Why? As far as I can see they did the same thing, the only difference is that when he got locked up she continued to use violence to achieve their common goal and when he came out he made a point of distancing himself from her and her actions. He became an icon and a (inter)national hero, she was quietly brushed under the PR carpet. Is one of them more right or righteous than the other?

I don't have an answer, just lots of questions and ideas around the subject.
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#6
Yup, best summary is at the bottom, not got the answers, just loads of questions!

Look at what 'we've' done in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years. It might be with good (?!) intentions (or not!) but nevertheless, we've helped kill tens of thousands of innocent people.
 

OnMeHeadFred

Vital Reserves Team
#7
BodyButter - 6/12/2013 08:07

It's interesting that the term 'freedom fighter' is almost obsolete now that the Atlantic axis no longer needs pawns to fight wars for them.

I read that only 2% of America's drone strikes in Pakistan have been against 'high value targets'. The other 1,000 or so victims have been innocent bystanders or those profiled by the yanks as potential terrorists.

I'm afraid the real terrorists are those who represent us.
Excellent!
 
G

Guest

Guest
#8
I respect other peoples rights in countries that we in the west have gone over and just rolled into and took over, and i would feel the same as they do seeing innocent people killed etc BUT why take it out on us the ordinary citizens and hate us?

They should go and take it out on the Blair's etc who caused the wars and ordered the strikes, the army are just doing there job we people have said over and over we am aginst the watr in Iraq and all that sick of seeing our young soldiers killed for government policies so i would have some respect if these so called freedom fighters took there fight to the right people at the top and not on us ordniary family people that they themselves are upset and fighting for back in there homelands it does baffle me tbh
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#9
Mandela had walked both sides of the path and had learnt how to change.

That for me sums up Mandela. He lived both sides of the good and evil for want of better words. He realized terrorism did not answer the problems in the world and he changed, to meet conditions.

That is why he has hero status I believe. Because he walked both paths. He for me I see as an imperfect human, as we all are, and did something about his imperfections realizing terrorism wasn't the way
 

BodyButter

Vital Football Legend
#10
ClivetheVillan - 6/12/2013 19:47

I respect other peoples rights in countries that we in the west have gone over and just rolled into and took over, and i would feel the same as they do seeing innocent people killed etc BUT why take it out on us the ordinary citizens and hate us?

They should go and take it out on the Blair's etc who caused the wars and ordered the strikes, the army are just doing there job we people have said over and over we am aginst the watr in Iraq and all that sick of seeing our young soldiers killed for government policies so i would have some respect if these so called freedom fighters took there fight to the right people at the top and not on us ordniary family people that they themselves are upset and fighting for back in there homelands it does baffle me tbh
Perhaps if our war was only against those at the top of Al Queda, their's would only be against those at the top of our system?

Unfortunately, the dirty way in which 'we' are fighting is only perpetuating the 'war'.

 
G

Guest

Guest
#11
Depends which side of the fence you are born and raised.

If your born black in South Africa during the time of Mandela, you will have no army the strength of the South African authorities, so you will probably seek to act in underground tactics to get your voice heard for gaining freedom. What else are they supposed to do, meet on a battlefield where they will be out powered? Its the suppressors that force the underground tactics - same with IRA, if you are born in that time and on that side of the fence you will act out accordingly.
 

James06

Vital Football Legend
#12
A freedom fighter I think, is someone who fights for what is right. For example, democracy in a situation where the majority are oppressed by the few.

Mandela was therefore a freedom fighter.

Nothern Ireland is democratic, the majority of people there are pro british. Therefore the likes of Martin McGuinness, as a minority, going against democracy, are terrorists.

This is why it's fair that Mandela won his fight, gained freedom, albeit long overdue, and earned his place in power. And why mcGuiness lost his fight was hanged and never got anywhere near british parliament......... hmm yeah something went wrong there!
 
#13
Surely the cause or legitimacy is not what defines if they are terrorists or not, it's whether or not yhey employ terror tactics. The freedom fighter question is a seperate issue.
 

James06

Vital Football Legend
#14
I dont think their actions are relevant - all's fair in love and war dont they say?

Was bouncing bombs into german dams an underhand sneaky terrorist act - or fair game? I'd say it was fair game because it was in the interest of democracy. Therefore they are freedom fighters and heroes.

Was blowing up two schoolboys in a Warrington shopping centre fair game by the IRA? I'd say not as their aim was to overule democracy and become a power over the majority. Hence it was terrorism by scumbags.

IMO of course.
 
G

Guest

Guest
#15
BodyButter - 6/12/2013 14:19

ClivetheVillan - 6/12/2013 19:47

I respect other peoples rights in countries that we in the west have gone over and just rolled into and took over, and i would feel the same as they do seeing innocent people killed etc BUT why take it out on us the ordinary citizens and hate us?

They should go and take it out on the Blair's etc who caused the wars and ordered the strikes, the army are just doing there job we people have said over and over we am aginst the watr in Iraq and all that sick of seeing our young soldiers killed for government policies so i would have some respect if these so called freedom fighters took there fight to the right people at the top and not on us ordniary family people that they themselves are upset and fighting for back in there homelands it does baffle me tbh
Perhaps if our war was only against those at the top of Al Queda, their's would only be against those at the top of our system?

Unfortunately, the dirty way in which 'we' are fighting is only perpetuating the 'war'.
Your right this is how our governments fight wars but as you rightly say ''we'' get branded and blamed for the top elite's actions when we are just sheepels anyway having no say or want for these wars that kill so many innocent people, nobody i know wanted us to go in Iraq but it happand anyway just think that these so called ''freedom fighters'' would get far more respect if they went after the ones that actually cause the war crimes imho
 
#16
James06 - 6/12/2013 17:34

I dont think their actions are relevant - all's fair in love and war dont they say?

Was bouncing bombs into german dams an underhand sneaky terrorist act - or fair game? I'd say it was fair game because it was in the interest of democracy. Therefore they are freedom fighters and heroes.

Was blowing up two schoolboys in a Warrington shopping centre fair game by the IRA? I'd say not as their aim was to overule democracy and become a power over the majority. Hence it was terrorism by scumbags.

IMO of course.
Then I will politely suggest that you've not really thought about what the word terrorism means. The bouncing bombs had nothing to do with terrorism and everthing to do with taking out strategic targets. Terrorism is about the psychology of warfare not who the combatants are or the legitimacy of their motivation. As the word suggests, terrorism is about inducing fear in others to gain influence over them
 
G

Guest

Guest
#17
James06 - 6/12/2013 16:19

A freedom fighter I think, is someone who fights for what is right. For example, democracy in a situation where the majority are oppressed by the few.

Mandela was therefore a freedom fighter.

Nothern Ireland is democratic, the majority of people there are pro british. Therefore the likes of Martin McGuinness, as a minority, going against democracy, are terrorists.

This is why it's fair that Mandela won his fight, gained freedom, albeit long overdue, and earned his place in power. And why mcGuiness lost his fight was hanged and never got anywhere near british parliament......... hmm yeah something went wrong there!
The problem is that the Catholics that were living in NI were suppressed by the British = protestants. They were treated as 2nd class citizens(which is how you can look at the blacks in SA during Mandela's youth). So people like Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams stood up to fight for these Irish Catholics living in NI. The RUC - were also mainly British in those days and they too tended to side with the British.
Catholics being beaten by RUC were common, nobody was fighting for their cause. So underground tactics were deployed against the British, the RUC and any members of the British armed forces, this on both sides of the seas.
If you are the minority with nowhere the near the arsenal that the country/people suppressing you and you family have - then you really only have three options;

1, Voice your concerns.
2, Give up your birth right and who you are.
3, Fight with whatever means you have for who you are.
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#19
Green Tea - 6/12/2013 16:55

James06 - 6/12/2013 16:19

A freedom fighter I think, is someone who fights for what is right. For example, democracy in a situation where the majority are oppressed by the few.

Mandela was therefore a freedom fighter.

Nothern Ireland is democratic, the majority of people there are pro british. Therefore the likes of Martin McGuinness, as a minority, going against democracy, are terrorists.

This is why it's fair that Mandela won his fight, gained freedom, albeit long overdue, and earned his place in power. And why mcGuiness lost his fight was hanged and never got anywhere near british parliament......... hmm yeah something went wrong there!
The problem is that the Catholics that were living in NI were suppressed by the British = protestants. They were treated as 2nd class citizens(which is how you can look at the blacks in SA during Mandela's youth). So people like Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams stood up to fight for these Irish Catholics living in NI. The RUC - were also mainly British in those days and they too tended to side with the British.
Catholics being beaten by RUC were common, nobody was fighting for their cause. So underground tactics were deployed against the British, the RUC and any members of the British armed forces, this on both sides of the seas.
If you are the minority with nowhere the near the arsenal that the country/people suppressing you and you family have - then you really only have three options;

1, Voice your concerns.
2, Give up your birth right and who you are.
3, Fight with whatever means you have for who you are.

.....................................................................

If we going to bring the IRA into this have to put the side in their, as ex was Southern Irish Catholic and I learnt the base of the history through, him and his Irish family.

The actual start of The IRA goes back to when they had a course: When The British under Robert Peel the potato famine against the Irish going back to the 1700's, amongst other atrocities.

Does anyone remember The McCann brothers in 1995 in the TV Serial of The Hanging Gale about the Irish famine?

That was the start of the Irish fighting back so the sins of our forefather carried on through the generations.

Up to Sunday bloody Sunday The IRA still had a cause though there was suspect things happening in the background.

After that it became about a hidden agenda of drugs money laundering and arms, hence why a certain contingency don't want peace and still don't.

So it all goes back again to the sins of the forefathers has once what was about the survival of their lives, to put it in simple terms became much more. What was about freedom fighting became about terrorism, hence the term, the sins of our forefathers.

In the 1 sense everyone whatever side is cupable
 
#20
Sparked a good debate. There's no doubting the good Mandela did ultimately, especially in later years when he became a beacon and somebody to look up to, but how far do you go in forgiving previous actions?

Interesting paradox with the IRA and subsequent tax payer funded positions...Sein Fein are a politic party and unless I'm having a meltdown have always existed as the political wing but 'we' have known terrorists elected now, although for a number their promotion to that role instead of what came before was the right thing to occur.

I think it all is perspective, as otherwise we are grading terrorism based on our own beliefs, desires and forgiving mass crime on the basis of well we thunk it was right.

As mentioned above, US drone strikes for a start.

But I agree it's a fascinating debate IF you can try and remove yourself from it and your own opininos and just look completely subjectively at things.

We do excuse so much in life apparently done in our name as a country, and we've also had our fair share of problems such as NI.

The only people who win from situations like this are the arms dealers and their shareholders really. Everything else is wrapped up in a perspective of one sort or another to justify actions.

Some like Mandela are hailed because the vast majority agree with what they were trying to achieve, others have a cult status like Che Guevara and are a huge commercial success which carries it's own irony.

For a Martin Luther, there's a Malcolm X, a Medgar Evans, blah blah.

If the cause is the same, is there not an arguement to say change couldn't have occurred without both sides of the coin?