PDA

View Full Version : World News Freedom Fighter



Atomik
16-03--2006, 11:17 PM
What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Discuss.

Ms. Vee
16-03--2006, 11:59 PM
There isn't a difference. Whichever label you use to describe the person depends on what side you are on. Essentially, a terrorist and a freedom fighter both do the same things - the choice of words just makes one sound worse or better than the other.

Atomik
17-03--2006, 12:01 AM
What about the intentional killing of civilians as a military tactic?

koolaid
17-03--2006, 01:12 AM
I guess then you are into desperation fighting, usually against a much larger foe and with no other means of retaliation..Am not codoning but can understand why maybe it is used

scarlett
17-03--2006, 12:12 PM
there really is no difference between freedom fighter and terrorist...no difference between religion and cult...it's all to do with the perception of whoever holds the power.

Atomik
17-03--2006, 12:13 PM
there really is no difference between freedom fighter and terrorist...no difference between religion and cult...it's all to do with the perception of whoever holds the power.So you're saying you wouldn't consider there to be any difference between an armed group that attacked military targets, and one that aimed to maximise civilian casualties?

scarlett
17-03--2006, 12:51 PM
no difference....i grew up in birmingham during the IRA bombings...lived in a catholic community....we suffered terribly and the hatred didn't stop there,even years after the bombings... we were escorted to school by coppers for two weeks...a group of mothers and children were attacked for the harm ''your lot did to our boys in the forces''.. i still cross the road if i see skin heads now.. then there were the threats against my father for not putting his hands in his pockets for ''the cause'' ( dad wasn't catholic or irish and had no time for 'causes' or for religion ) when the hat was passed around...luckily my fathers family were well 'respected' and nothing came of it...my sister and i never want our families to go through what we did ..scared of parcels and letters,knocks on the door ..couldn't trust the police, you couldn't trust some of your neighbours...we were caught in the crossfire.

the knock on effect that action taken by one group against the other is horrific...Gandhi had the right attitude...''an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind''

Paul
17-03--2006, 01:17 PM
So you're saying you wouldn't consider there to be any difference between an armed group that attacked military targets, and one that aimed to maximise civilian casualties?But how would you define a military target?

Sometimes the sentence "collateral damage caused while attacking a legitimate military target" sounds like an excuse.

Atomik
17-03--2006, 01:30 PM
I agree it's difficult, and the idea of 'collateral damage' is too often used as an excuse for disregard for civilian life. But I still think that there's a difference between disregard for civilian casualties and intentionally targeting civilians as a tactic.

scarlett
17-03--2006, 01:41 PM
insurgents...we don't have terrorists or freedom fighters in the ''new war on terror'' ( whatever happened to the old war on terror ?..oops don't mention the ''old war'' the yanks helped fund that )...we have insurgents...in fact we could class ourselves as insurgents...so does that mean WE are legitimate targets ?

Atomik
17-03--2006, 01:54 PM
I don't believe in the concept of legitimate targets. But just because our military are bad, it doesn't mean that others aren't worse.

Spacer
18-03--2006, 03:58 PM
In Ireland the IRA were considered freedom fighters by nearly the entire population, but lost alot of credibility when they started hitting civilian targets. There are however still people who consider them freedom fighters. As was pointed out earlier, ones point of view depends on which side you are on.

phil
20-03--2006, 04:03 PM
In my opinion if you intensionally set out to kill/main civilians to terrorise the rest of the population then you are a terrorist if you are targeting military targets you could call youself a freedom fighter. Just my opinion

PeacePiper
22-03--2006, 05:05 PM
In my opinion if you intensionally set out to kill/main civilians to terrorise the rest of the population then you are a terrorist if you are targeting military targets you could call youself a freedom fighter. Just my opinion
Agreed

Atomik
22-03--2006, 05:08 PM
Agreed:ditto: