Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 template Next
  • #76
    Originally posted by Pax Africanus
    Actually the subversive purpose of this thread is to prove that there is no real distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. There are no organizations that exist specifically for the purpose of terrorizing. Each organization has a specific goal and theoretically when that goal is met they would cease hostilities.
    Doesn't make all terrorists freedom fighters, since you can hardly call the fight for any goals a fight for freedom.
    Blah

    Comment

    • #77
      Originally posted by DinoDoc
      The shear stupidity of this thread amuses me.
      What's stupid about it? If you're not interested stay away.
      What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
      What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

      Comment

      • #78
        Originally posted by BeBro


        Doesn't make all terrorists freedom fighters, since you can hardly call the fight for any goals a fight for freedom.
        These groups all felt they were being oppressed in one way or another. The KKK is a good example.
        What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
        What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

        Comment

        • #79
          PAX, I think that any armed revolutions or struggle whose goal is not to overthrow oppression but to install oppression in the form of anti-democratic regimes are "terrorist" even if they do not employ terror. The converse is also true. Any revolution or struggle whose aim is to overthrow oppression in order to install democracy is for "freedom" even if it does use terror (as in Dresden, for example).

          I don't have to go through your list to tell you how I would come out on your survey. All communist/nazi struggles are terrorist, per se. Many others on your list have shades of grey.
          http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

          Comment

          • #80
            Originally posted by Pax Africanus
            What's stupid about it?
            The whole terrorist/guerilla (Freedom fighter is too emotive a term for me to take seriously) debate.
            I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
            For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

            Comment

            • #81
              Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
              So you would classify the Nazi party as freedom fighters? IIRC that was exactly what they claimed to be. Would you actually put the Nazis and America's revolutionary leaders in the same category?
              No, the Nazi's were a recognised, democratically elected government. They were not terrorists. War criminals yes, but not terrorists.

              Comment

              • #82
                Originally posted by Rogan Josh


                No, the Nazi's were a recognised, democratically elected government. They were not terrorists. War criminals yes, but not terrorists.
                OK, now we're getting somewhere.

                Before they were elected though they exercised considerable intimidation and violence against their political rivals and innocent minorities. Were they terrorists then?
                "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

                Comment

                • #83
                  Originally posted by Rogan Josh democratically elected .
                  Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, but legally elected would be a more accurate description....... democratically elected? Not exactly.

                  Yeah, people always claim that but it seems that they don't take into consideration the intimidation (both physical and otherwise) and other behind-the-scenes stuff that was happening both before and during the process, to say the very least...doesn't sound like a very democratic and free election to me (even if the Nazis did have a bigger plurality behind them at first or even, eventually, a majority).
                  DULCE BELLUM INEXPERTIS

                  Comment

                  • #84
                    The Freedom Fighter is the one with the moral high ground. In America, the revolutionaries had it, because they (AFAIK, except for possibly rogue elements) did not target civilians and were opposing oppression. In Israel, the suicide bombers do not, because whether or not they are fighting an oppressor, they are targetting civilians.

                    Comment

                    • #85
                      Once again since the goal is never to terrorize then their is actually no such thing as a terrorist.

                      I appologize in advance for being blunt - but this phrase is stupid. Terrorism is a means - not an end goal.

                      That is like saying that because we mostly don't drive cars just for the heck of it, and instead usually have an intention to get some place, then we aren't really drivers. We're really "some-place goers", because that is our real goal.



                      Terrorism is a method. If someone terrorises for the sheer fun of it, then he's a sick bastard - but that's another story.

                      Terrorism is always a method used for some goals - some more and some less worthy - usually political.

                      Comment

                      • #86
                        Re: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

                        Originally posted by Pax Africanus
                        ETA(Basque Seperatists)
                        Mission: Autonomous state for Basques in Northeast corner of Spain, West corner of France.
                        The fact they blow up innocent civilians and once packed explosives in a doll which killed the child playing with it. ETA are nothing more than terrorists who should all rot in hell, if there is one.
                        For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                        Comment

                        • #87
                          Originally posted by DinoDoc
                          The whole terrorist/guerilla (Freedom fighter is too emotive a term for me to take seriously) debate.
                          So terrorist is not "too emotive" a term?
                          (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                          (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                          (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                          Comment

                          • #88
                            the ETA are freedom fighters.
                            "Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini

                            Comment

                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
                              the ETA are freedom fighters.
                              No they are not. If you believe that you should be held for supporting terrorism.
                              For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                              Comment

                              • #90
                                there he is. i was wondering when he would come out. +1.
                                "Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 template Next
                                Working...
                                X