user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
That includes state terrorism.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It depends on who is asking the question.
Like the IRA for example. The British would call them terrorists but to as a lot of Irish people their freedom fighters. Same goes for ETA and the PLO. I guess the same could be said of the so called insurgents in Iraq.
by B_P on Mon Oct 11, 04 12:05pm
[+]
I'll wait for the hypocrites to join in before i may say anything else!
by isay on Mon Oct 11, 04 12:06pm
[+]
If they intentionally target noncombatants in a conflict they are terrorists.
Should suicide Al-Qaeda and Taliban bombers, Palestinian skyjackers, Zionist hit squads, Basque separatists, Irish revolutionaries, and South American kidnappers be seen as the same? Are they properly classified with the insurgents of the American, French, and Russian revolutions? Do their actions resemble the tactics of the red brigade, the KKK, the Roman catholic church during the inquisition, or big-time drug trafficking street gangs and networks of international orgainised crime? Were the methods of the African National Congress and the racist South African government it opposed both cases of terrorists? Was the state terrorism of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung a part of the same definition? Are protestors demanding for more rights technically also terrorists? Where does one draw the line? The whole concepts of 'terrorism' and 'freedom fighter' confuses me!
If they are the same thing, is it valid to call the new era 'The war against freedom-fighters'?
Firepower!
EUROTOPIA I concur with your statements. The lines between freedom fighter and terrorist are often fuzzy at best. Herzog said if they intentionally target non combatants then they are terrorists. By that logic the US are terrorists because they bombed urban areas with the intention of killing those below. Smart bombs do not differentiate between terrorist and innocent civilians. Over here we have all seen the footage (taken from the plane) of two US pilots bombing civilians crossing the street. Surely that should constitute a terrorist act. Like I said earlier it depends on whos asking.
by B_P on Mon Oct 11, 04 12:29pm
[+]
Didn't we have the same ballot about a week ago?
Depends on your bias when viewing the conflict.
They imply a statement
about the "heart" of the individual.
I think that Freedom Fighters, as seen in their traditional light, are not likely to specifically target civilians. Freedom Fighters are usually trying to target a military occupier and they would be less likely to plan in advance to go after innocent people. I think Terrorists lack a vision of their own: they are angry and in a rage and they lash out in the most violent way they can...Terrorists hurt innocent people and are proud of it. It's not an easily defined difference and it all depends on who you ask. During the American Revolution, one would call them "Rebels," while another would call them freedom fighters. In regard to the Taliban, they inflicted utter terror on their own people and allowed bin Laden to come to Afghanistan to export his terrorism, to that becomes "state sponsored terrorism," bin Laden is just a murdering devil becuase he does not care that babies might die, or an old innocent woman, or a crippled little boy, or a kind and gentle grandfather...you name it...he just does not care, so he is a terrorist. If a country is fighting off insurgents, those insurgents are maybe freedom fighters and the traditional military fighting them considers them to be enemy combatants. Oh geez, I don't know...I guess it's all just murder no matter how you look at it.
|
|
