One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter

» Home » Politics

Your thoughts and whether you agree or disagree. Please explain your position's. Yes and no answers are not of any credibility or any influence. If you're not going to elaborate your answers, do not post. I am here to gain knowledge, i am not here to solely know your opinion. I do not care about your opinion, I care about why you have that opinion, and what evidence you have for that opinion, etc.

chow0jason

03 Apr 2009 20:00

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

A rose by any other name...
The American Revolution probably would have been called a terrorist action. They certainly called it every nasty name they could think of at the time. Certainly if reading history tells us anything about terrorists and freedom fighters is that the ones called freedom fighters seem to be the ones that win and get to write the history books. Funny how only the freedom fighters win.

finsch

30 Apr 2009 15:33

5 Comments

We're at the point where that is no longer true. Perhaps the country that was the victor would have some "vigorous editing" but the war would be in full view of the international community, each group with their own opinion. In the case of the American Revolution, word-of-mouth and the few historians wrote the history books.

Homestar

30 Apr 2009 16:06

Comment

The Europeans and Native Americans are good examples. While the Europeans thought that they were braving the wilderness for their fellow countrymen, the Native Americans thought that they were devils (they might have been right on that one). To quote a line from the musical Wicked, "...Is one who's a crusader, a ruthless invader? It's all in which label is able to persist."

bookworm3

07 Apr 2009 01:28

Add a Comment

Sually true so long as the terrorist is from or with a group or promoting a cause of a group.

But it's not impossible to have a lone wolf terrorist who really isn't affiliated with anyone or anything -- although in those cases they're usually just labelled "criminals" or "psycopathic killers" instead of terrorists.

AndyQTPham

05 Apr 2009 12:12

Add a Comment

I don't see how you could disagree with this. It's like two people being in an argument and one party says, "We are in total agreement."

Specter87

04 Apr 2009 16:10

Add a Comment

Nelson Mandela is a good example. He was branded a terrorist for most of his life. In fact, he was still officially listed as a terrorist by the US until last year.

Evileye

04 Apr 2009 12:54

2 Comments

I think it works this way in some cases. But it still cannot be used universally to advocate all acts of terror, can it?

TomasV

05 Apr 2009 11:51

Comment

Terrorism is the way the poor wage war.

War is the way the rich wage terrorism.

.

04 Apr 2009 08:03

Add a Comment

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any terrorists.

2free

04 Apr 2009 01:16

Add a Comment

Don't bring your freedom fighting across the seas then. You too Federal Government. Ha.

gottfried

03 Apr 2009 22:52

Add a Comment

Usually true so long as the terrorist is from or with a group or promoting a cause of a group.

But it's not impossible to have a lone wolf terrorist who really isn't affiliated with anyone or anything -- although in those cases they're usually just labelled "criminals" or "psycopathic killers" instead of terrorists.

Grenache

03 Apr 2009 21:13

Add a Comment

I agree with your debate. And it's my right to withhold the evidence! Freedom to the people!

Balance_92

03 Apr 2009 20:36

Add a Comment

Yup. But are there exceptions?

Stranger

03 Apr 2009 20:17

2 Comments

what do you mean exceptions? elaborate.

chow0jason

03 Apr 2009 20:27

Comment

There are definitely different perspectives on unconventional forces (to try and pick a neutral term). The people they are fighting for often view them very sympathetically, the people who's army they are fighting against usually aren't so keen on them.

This doesn't mean that both sides are right, just that unconventional forces do indeed often split opinions on an even greater extreme than simple warfare.

Quincel

03 Apr 2009 20:09

1 Comment

yeh i most definitely agree. I think war is in itself unethical and goes against precisely the goals that it is fought for.

chow0jason

03 Apr 2009 20:26

Comment

The definition of a "terrorist" would include all methodology which uses/employs the use of "terror" to control, demean, abase, subjugate, destroy another human being.
Including bullying and heresy/slander/gossip.
Most terrorists do not have any part of politics in the specific realm of foreign affairs/politics.
Most terrorists are just your average run of the mill @ssh*les.

jalapenos

09 Apr 2009 17:10

1 Comment

"Most terrorists are just your average run of the mill @ssh*les"
I am not a terrorist, thank you.

Smito

19 Apr 2009 07:10

Comment

I tend to say no.

I believe that no man, woman or even a child should ever be killed because of a political belief.

Killing someone because of your political or religious belief is terrorism, no matter how great the ideals that are fought for are.

Manking and life itself is the greatest ideal for me.

TomasV

04 Apr 2009 22:16

Add a Comment

Oh yeah? Even when they kill the innocent. They are cowards in sheeps clothing.

keepmindok

04 Apr 2009 00:30

54 Comments

Haha OK then what is it when our soldiers kill the enemies woman and children? Heroes? Heck in the civil war we were destroying EVERYTHING. World war 2, do you think we were giving those German families a chance to escape. They're not cowards they are just doing their job.

Smito

04 Apr 2009 16:45

Comment

"Next thing I know you'll be asking me to explain plonker.

If you spell it backwards it is live and vile is an anagram. That aught to do for a start. 
If some one came up and clobbered you up side the head with a lump of wood with a six inch nail in it you might find it vile and no longer live to know you were terrorized, if you catch my drift."

Nice comeback but how about for the sake of those who are trying to be serious lets define it in our own opinions this time.

Very deep jalapenos, i don't agree, but very deep. First i don't understand your first statement. tell me what you mean by nothing because i cant tell if you really mean nothing at all or nothing good, in your opinion. 
Well I've considered a few of my thoughts as being evil but it has nothing to do with apathy or laziness, maybe fear in some cases. I mean apathy is not caring and being lazy is being inactive. Now it's not apathy that makes me want to beat that fool with a shoe horn its anger or sadness or envy. I have also noticed that when i feel that way i feel more compelled to do something not to sit and think about it. 
The weed is not evil. The weed didn't force you to smoke it. You as a human chose it. Guns don't kill people, you do. 
People do some pretty odd things that seem to contradict their nature. Ive seen guys who are mean and angry help others. Ive seen myself support a cause, a very rare event. 
Really? Are those terrorists not fathers? Are they not brothers or sisters? Have we ever considered that maybe that terrorists goes home each day thanking his god that hes alive to bring his children candy? How a man acts around his peers is not generally how he is. 
And what when the good man bashes the evil? Is the good man still good? Even though is heart is great is he not bringing himself to the evil mans level by telling the evil man how bad he truly is?

Comment

"The only reason they had people on there side wasn't because they were so admired, it was because the gutless feared them" Really now? If everybody feared him then why would they join his side? I mean did 1 man fight at doomsday? or did millions of soldiers. If Hitlers followers didn't believe in the man who saved the German economy, and allowed the people to place the blame of the world on one race. They loved Hitler, it was well documented. If they all really feared Hitler it would have been very unlikely for him ever to gain any power with a entire army of guns guarding Germany.

"You have a strange way of looking at things, it is all here for everyone to see"
I would love to hear example.

"Everything else is just being repeated" 
That is because you keep returning to the same subject of how bad these people are. I'm just returning the favor.

"Also it is not freedom it is greed coupled with fear you need to take into account. And greed if the route of all evil"
Greed? are you really going to go into greed? Greed is just when one man doesn't like what another man does. If Bill Gates didn't donate a huge amount of money to charities each year is he greedy? and if he is why aren't you donating money to? are you greedy now too?
Now why don't you tell me what this greed is and how this fear works with it instead of just telling me your "facts".

Comment

"No you are raising issues while ignoring to observe, any dictator is no- ones freedom fighter. You Suggest that Bill Gates money is pure and free from evil That cannot be so as money is the route of all evil."
Here's the issue my friend. You are attempting to use your opinion as fact without providing any evidence. It really doesn't matter to me how evil Hitler is unless you can explain to me why. I'm attempting to use personal evidence and situations, something that you don't wish to consider. Yes i believe money is pure and free from evil as it is just objects. The money isnt making the man a bad person. The gun doesnt kill the target. The shooter kills him.

"Hitler for one wanted absolute control. He had control over his minions and I have already addressed these points with you You are either thick or having a laugh.. Choose one. "
This is your second issue. You say you know exactly what he thought. You say you know exactly what he was like. It seems to never have occurred to you that maybe the holy American government influenced our history to make them seem more heroic. You are not addressing the point. You are stating and expecting me to say Wow he must be right. Either give me some evidence or situations or just give up.

Comment

No, that's a myth. A terrorist specifically chooses innocent and civilian targets and all that embark on that path are terrorists. I have yet to see freedom achieved by anyone who has chosen this strategy.

innomen

03 Apr 2009 22:01

13 Comments

I was going to put the same argument forward but then I thought about why someone would use terrorist tactics. Take the Taliban for instance they appear to just be evil terrorists in the West, but to some in the East they are seen as protectors of faith.

Balance_92

03 Apr 2009 22:06

Comment

"Do you think that the Taliban call themselves freedom fighters?" Ask yourself this. If a dog says its a pointer, is it not still a dog? Are the taliban not fighting for their religious and political beliefs? 
"Not to mention the fact that they can call themselves anything that they want, but they are not freedom fighters." 
Yes they can call themselves. Should every insurance company in the world be called insurance company? Can't one be car insurance while another is life insurance. Or should we make a law saying they all have to be called Insurance Company?
"Do you think the FARC call themselves freedom fighters?"
Could you explain the FARC to me ive never heard of them?\
"They call themselves revolutionaries, not freedom fighters" 
The french revolutionaries fought for social freedom did they not? Let me do you a favor. I'll give you my definition of revolution. Change.
"You could make the argument that the Contras who opposed the Sandinistas were freedom fighters, but it would take some work to prove that they were both terrorist and freedom fighters."
Why cant freedom fighter and terrorist be synonym? 
"you have been following the academic myth of what is stated in this debate."
Haha i love that innomen. "You have been following a common place idea so you must be wrong." Just because a idea is common place doesn't make it a myth my friend. 
"Also, what makes you think there is such a limited number of terrorists?" The fact that i have yet to hear of any huge armies of terrorists marching onto other countries. I have heard of 1 or 2 crashing a plane but show me where a mass of them has every been used.

Comment

"You're just way wrong all over the place here. First, they can be fighting for religious purposes, and that does not relate to the debate. They can be fighting for the rain to be purple, but it doesn't relate to the debate"
Haha we're pretty straight forward there aren't we. My dear innomen it has everything to do with this debate. A freedom fighter is the title given to them by the people who support them. If they fight for the religious rights and beliefs of a specific religion are they not heroes amongst that religion? Your example however is a bit off. I would state it more to the point of they fight for their belief that the rain is purple. A persons beliefs doesnt make a fact.

"Go do some reading on the FARC, it isn't all that unknown."
Well my friend if you going to mention it but not protect it with evidence it wasn't really wise to state in the first place now was it?

"Never said that because it is a common plae idea it must be wrong. You need to read my words more carefully."
Well I'm sorry my friend. You did not say that, however; that is what i infrared and still infer from it.

"The French revolution is an Excellent example. No they didn't fight for freedom, they fought for equality, and that was why they were doomed. Look into the objectives of the French revolution and tell me it was about freedom!? "
Well innomen if i take a orange and call it a mandarin. Then i state that this is a mandarin and its not a orange. Is it still not a orange. Just as equality is freedom in many ways. Equality amongst their populations was to allow them the freedom to hunt game for their food, a right reserved for the higher class. Was that not a freedom they fought for?

"Why cannot freedom fighters be terrorists? Because they are at cross purposes. You cannot target civilians with the expectation of freedom, equality maybe, but not freedom."
Really? to begin with please define the purposes of freedom fighters and terrorists for me? And i mean the purposes that these terrorists or freedom fighters tell you. Here's where your bias seems to be blocking your logic. If my country is being occupied by a force of a hostile country and i send a bomb raid over one of their major cities it may be enough of a show of force to make them leave. It may piss them off at the same time and make them want to come back more but by doing so my intention was to guarrentee the rights of my peoples. Did i not use a terrorist method to gain the freedom of my people.

"As for the number of terrorists in the world, first find out who the FARC are and then we can start on a few more groups that exist in the world"
Again my friend this is your point not mine. If your going to use it as a example then provide something for me.

Great fun and goodluck innomen

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

13 minutes ago

No obviously they wouldnt be as advanced as us. Why you ask? Because we have been sending out satellites and sending people... read more...

1 hour ago

They will have gotten further than us so yeah. If they weren't good willed, we'd be royally screwed. read more...

2 hours ago

What are you saying? read more...

2 hours ago

Same, what are you saying? read more...

2 hours ago

Ha ha ! So true american cars are all huge, unnecessery cars that all spin out in corners! Maybe thats why nascar race tracks... read more...

Related Debates

	American Media Must Cover The McCain Songbird Issue
	It Is Possible To Tax The Compassion Out Of People.
	Should Our British Troops Leave Iraqistan
	The US Constitution Should Be Revised
	Most Of This Site Is About Politics !
	Government Control Has Been Put To Shame By Competition And Free Market Economics
	The Internet Is Filled With Highly-opinionated Right-wing Schoolboys Who Read Little And Analyse Less,...
	The Tax System In America Is Unfair! The Lower 40% Of Wage Earners Pay No Income Tax.
	The Constituitional Provision Allowing For A Tax Was Not Intended To Make The Rich A Private Bank For...
	ALL Of Bernie Madoff's And His Family's Property Should Be Liquidated And The Proceeds Split Up Among...

New Debates

	You Can't Be Prolife And Believe In Murder
	R* Games Delay Gta Episodes From Liberty City On Ps3 For Another 4 Weeks!!!
	R.E Shouldn't Be A Forced Subject At Secondary School!
	Aliens Are Superior To Us
	Can Anything Be Considered Art? What IS The Definition Of Art?
	For And Against Should Provide A Link To The List Of Words The Censor Won't Let Us Use. They Can Require...
	Students Should Learn A Physical Trade To Graduate Highschool~
	Biblical Views Regarding Women Are Utterly Outdated And Should Be Ignored.
	Planned Parenthood Is A Bad Thought
	The Single Most Effective Action America Could Take To Reduce The Problem With Illegal Immigration Would...