One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.......really? | Page 2 | Vital Football

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

  • Thread starter Villan Of The North
  • Start date
Villan Of The North - 6/12/2013 16:57

Clive, what the feck are "sheepels"?
Click to expand...
Me and you baaaah :17: Nah just meaning sheep as in meaning folk that just go along with the current government policies without challenging them as we should do really, just like following along like a sheep as they call it matey i just added ''els'' on the end cos im daft :14:
 
In the end of the day, terrorist is a nonsense term used to describe the enemy for doing things which your side have probably done too.

I saw a former US soldier confessing to shooting down innocent civilians with his platoon in Iraq and firing on a mosque with no idea who was in there. According to him, these war crimes are common in Iraq and the higher ups turn a blind eye to them.
 
The Fear - 6/12/2013 18:07

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
Click to expand...

Hmmm very different things in my opinion.

Leading a movement and blowing up government buildings is different.

I applaud and have the utmost respect for the man and what he did for his country and for human rights movements around the world but no one can deny he was ('kinda') a terrorist in the true meaning of the word.

If you haven't already, read his autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom". Its very dry reading but alot of the details are in there.

 
What would you guys count the atomic bombs in WW2?

Personally I think that's the worst terrorist attacks in human history.
The intention was to kill as many civilians as possible - is that not extreme terrorism?
Even worse is that Americans still talk about it as some sort of heroic act.



Slightly more to the point: Freedom fighter - some one who fights to improve their/others lives; terrorist - someone who intentionally harms civilians to make a point
 
I agee with some of what you say there David, if you read the blog that the opening post links to you will find I make the same point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, a terrorist is not necessarily someone who kills civilians, it's someone who uses tactics to scare people into submission rather than hitting stratigic targets. If one accepts your definition of terrorism then much of what the IRA did was not terrorism as many of their targets were military.
 
Villan Of The North - 7/12/2013 16:32

I agee with some of what you say there David, if you read the blog that the opening post links to you will find I make the same point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, a terrorist is not necessarily someone who kills civilians, it's someone who uses tactics to scare people into submission rather than hitting stratigic targets. If one accepts your definition of terrorism then much of what the IRA did was not terrorism as many of their targets were military.
Click to expand...
So Ian what would you call knee capping petty thieves or people that smoked a bit of dope.They terrorised their own people into joining up and to make donations.They also forced people to hide weapons and money for them.
 
Andy, I'm not saying they were not terrorists, I'm saying that I disagree with David's definition. Terrorists terrorise, that's my point, the cause that they fight for does not define them as such, it's their actions. The whole premise of my opening post is that being a freedom fighter does not preclude being a terrorist but not all terrorists are freedom fighters.
 
Villan Of The North - 7/12/2013 16:32

I agee with some of what you say there David, if you read the blog that the opening post links to you will find I make the same point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, a terrorist is not necessarily someone who kills civilians, it's someone who uses tactics to scare people into submission rather than hitting stratigic targets. If one accepts your definition of terrorism then much of what the IRA did was not terrorism as many of their targets were military.
Click to expand...

Obviously the definition of terrorism is to cause "terror", but I think it's hard to "scare people into submission" without causing harm to the 'enemy'
I avoided the word "kill" in my definition because it's not necessarily about killing people. I said harm - I meant it as in physical harm but it could also include psychological or even economical harm too.
 
Villan Of The North - 7/12/2013 16:46

Andy, I'm not saying they were not terrorists, I'm saying that I disagree with David's definition. Terrorists terrorise, that's my point, the cause that they fight for does not define them as such, it's their actions. The whole premise of my opening post is that being a freedom fighter does not preclude being a terrorist but not all terrorists are freedom fighters.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes reread your post yeah I took it that you thought they were freedom fighters yes I see your point now.
 
david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:49

Villan Of The North - 7/12/2013 16:32

I agee with some of what you say there David, if you read the blog that the opening post links to you will find I make the same point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, a terrorist is not necessarily someone who kills civilians, it's someone who uses tactics to scare people into submission rather than hitting stratigic targets. If one accepts your definition of terrorism then much of what the IRA did was not terrorism as many of their targets were military.
Click to expand...

Obviously the definition of terrorism is to cause "terror", but I think it's hard to "scare people into submission" without causing harm to the 'enemy'
I avoided the word "kill" in my definition because it's not necessarily about killing people. I said harm - I meant it as in physical harm but it could also include psychological or even economical harm too.
Click to expand...
Reputation will always spread fear it's the way bullies work.
 
gator - 7/12/2013 17:00

david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:49

Villan Of The North - 7/12/2013 16:32

I agee with some of what you say there David, if you read the blog that the opening post links to you will find I make the same point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, a terrorist is not necessarily someone who kills civilians, it's someone who uses tactics to scare people into submission rather than hitting stratigic targets. If one accepts your definition of terrorism then much of what the IRA did was not terrorism as many of their targets were military.
Click to expand...

Obviously the definition of terrorism is to cause "terror", but I think it's hard to "scare people into submission" without causing harm to the 'enemy'
I avoided the word "kill" in my definition because it's not necessarily about killing people. I said harm - I meant it as in physical harm but it could also include psychological or even economical harm too.
Click to expand...
Reputation will always spread fear it's the way bullies work.
Click to expand...

But my point is, where does that reputation come from until they cause harm? Was anyone really scared of Al Qaeda before 9/11?

By the way - the timing on this site is so far out, it's saying posts were posted 8 minutes in the future to when they were actually posted
 
The Fear - 6/12/2013 10:35



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.
Click to expand...

We have? How do you work that out then?


 
david-avfc - 7/12/2013 17:07

gator - 7/12/2013 17:00

david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:49

Villan Of The North - 7/12/2013 16:32

I agee with some of what you say there David, if you read the blog that the opening post links to you will find I make the same point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, a terrorist is not necessarily someone who kills civilians, it's someone who uses tactics to scare people into submission rather than hitting stratigic targets. If one accepts your definition of terrorism then much of what the IRA did was not terrorism as many of their targets were military.
Click to expand...

Obviously the definition of terrorism is to cause "terror", but I think it's hard to "scare people into submission" without causing harm to the 'enemy'
I avoided the word "kill" in my definition because it's not necessarily about killing people. I said harm - I meant it as in physical harm but it could also include psychological or even economical harm too.
Click to expand...
Reputation will always spread fear it's the way bullies work.
Click to expand...

But my point is, where does that reputation come from until they cause harm? Was anyone really scared of Al Qaeda before 9/11?

By the way - the timing on this site is so far out, it's saying posts were posted 8 minutes in the future to when they were actually posted
Click to expand...
Like I say David where a bully will smack a weaker person Al Qaeda blow up innocent people who can't hit back they will terrorise their own people they rule with fear so did the IRA.
 
david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:05

What would you guys count the atomic bombs in WW2?

Personally I think that's the worst terrorist attacks in human history.
The intention was to kill as many civilians as possible - is that not extreme terrorism?
Even worse is that Americans still talk about it as some sort of heroic act.

Slightly more to the point: Freedom fighter - some one who fights to improve their/others lives; terrorist - someone who intentionally harms civilians to make a point
Click to expand...


The atomic bombs were used because the US commanders did not want to be fighting a costly war of attrition, potentially on two fronts against the soviets as well. As the Japanese were the aggressor in the Pacific, and lets not forget thats what they were, they had become legitimate targets.

Both bomb sites were of huge strategic value because they were industrial centres. The Japanese armed forces under the emperor were fanatical and would not have accepted surrender on any terms, save the threat of complete annihilation. The atomic bombs were a last resort, used to abruptly end the conflict and preserve allied lives, which is exactly what they did. They were not used just to kill as many civilians as possible.

People forget just how inhumane and barbaric the Japanese were before and during WW2. Im not saying the use of ultimate force in the form of atomic bombs was fair, but it was justifiable at the time.

In the context of the wider argument, what the americans did at hiroshima and nagasaki was never an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, a justifiable use of force designed to finish a hideously expensive waste of life and resources, excessive yes, but theres no such thing as a mild fission bomb, sadly its all or nothing.
 
Easily mate. Illegal war (second one) and then put in the casualties of war. Sadly not just military affected by the bombing etc and yes, their terrorists have also massively increased the numbers.

Also the waste of our brave and honourable soldiers lives as well, but that is a different debate.

These are countries we should not be in, we can't look after our own let alone police the worlds problems.
 
Good post that villainatplay, a very fair answer and the realisation of the horrors of war.

Without meaning to sound like a child but the Japanese started it when they attacked Pearl Harbour. That could be argued as a terrorist attack on a country who were not, at that point, involved in fighting the 2nd World War directly. Japan had their reasons, they felt the inevitability of US involvement and decided to strike first. In fact even after the attack the Americans were at first only interested in revenge and war against Japan only for Hitler to foolishly declare war on the US thus involving them completely in the second World War Two (as Abe Simpson would say).

I'm sure America would have been involved in the war in the main eventually anyway but there act against Japan was the final act of war, not a war they started and therefore the dropping of the bomb can never be described as an act of terrorism IMO, another possible motive may have been to discourage further World Wars by the flexing of their military muscles.

We live in a very different world these days.
 
The Fear - 7/12/2013 18:44

Easily mate. Illegal war (second one) and then put in the casualties of war. Sadly not just military affected by the bombing etc and yes, their terrorists have also massively increased the numbers.

Also the waste of our brave and honourable soldiers lives as well, but that is a different debate.

These are countries we should not be in, we can't look after our own let alone police the worlds problems.
Click to expand...

And that bastard Tony Blair is walking around smiling, selling books and pretending he is a good a just person, when in fact he should be tried for war crimes!
 
villainatplay - 8/12/2013 03:19

david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:05

What would you guys count the atomic bombs in WW2?

Personally I think that's the worst terrorist attacks in human history.
The intention was to kill as many civilians as possible - is that not extreme terrorism?
Even worse is that Americans still talk about it as some sort of heroic act.

Slightly more to the point: Freedom fighter - some one who fights to improve their/others lives; terrorist - someone who intentionally harms civilians to make a point
Click to expand...


The atomic bombs were used because the US commanders did not want to be fighting a costly war of attrition, potentially on two fronts against the soviets as well. As the Japanese were the aggressor in the Pacific, and lets not forget thats what they were, they had become legitimate targets.

Both bomb sites were of huge strategic value because they were industrial centres. The Japanese armed forces under the emperor were fanatical and would not have accepted surrender on any terms, save the threat of complete annihilation. The atomic bombs were a last resort, used to abruptly end the conflict and preserve allied lives, which is exactly what they did. They were not used just to kill as many civilians as possible.

People forget just how inhumane and barbaric the Japanese were before and during WW2. Im not saying the use of ultimate force in the form of atomic bombs was fair, but it was justifiable at the time.

In the context of the wider argument, what the americans did at hiroshima and nagasaki was never an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, a justifiable use of force designed to finish a hideously expensive waste of life and resources, excessive yes, but theres no such thing as a mild fission bomb, sadly its all or nothing.
Click to expand...

The Japs were considering surrender before the first bomb was dropped and the Americans knew this. They offered to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped and the Americans rejected it.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were dropped because the Americans wanted a live test of their power and to scare the Russians. They didn't save any lives. It's an atrocity which we should all be ashamed of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.