This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Freedom Fighters? or Terrorists?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Magnerz
Should probably be getting some shut-eye (on UK time) round about now... but its hard to step away from these topics, especially when they are on such contriversial areas =)
I think one key problem here is that people are trying to define complex organisations with simple definitions. Make a definition too simple and its becomes too broad, too non-specific. Yet make a definition very honed in, and you risk the opposite.
Some people seem to think terrorists incite fear for the sake of inciting fear. Whilst i can't be sure, i doubt very much that this is the case, fear for fear's sake is sadistic and completely irrational. It would also assume that terrorists are stupid and have a very limited scope in their aims, something i think most could agree upon is not true. However abhorrant the acts of terrorists are, there is, generally speaking, a political/economic/social/religious agenda lurking somewhere in the shadows.
Sometimes this agenda is very obvious; the ETA attacks on the train network in Spain aimed to heavily influence the political elections soon to be held (withing 6 months-1year), and they did. The notions of terrorists are not always so horrifying as people might think, but it is the ways in which they set out to achieve these aims which rightly confuses people.
The IRA wanted British people and influence out of Northern Ireland, and Britain sought to protect the rights of those Britons living in Northern Ireland. Essentially two sides to the same coin, neither argument was particularly new or radical and yet the climate of fear created across Ireland, Northern Ireland and mainland Britain was to essentially fuel armed conflict.
These are rational goals, with merits to the arguments of each side, and to understand terrorism and terrorist organisations as such, as opposed to absolute nut-jobs who just want to create fear, is, i think, a step in the right direction.
Short version; terrorists, like non-terrorists, do have aims (be they wide/narrow), the main question to ask is; Should we be trying to define terrorism by those aims, by the methods used to achieve those aims, or perhaps a mixture of the two?
Do the ends ever truly justify the means?
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, it doesn't have to be a competition about being right and wrong here - all of your posts don't have to be infallible, and no-one should realistically expect that of any other person. Furthermore, when people quote you and pick you up on a point, there is little point moving to further things you've raised as a defence. Sure you may have later covered something else which crosses over, but your opening statement of "
Terrorist Motives
= Slaughter anyone and everyone neccessary, including yourself,
to spread the peaceful message of Allah
." clearly has a glaring flaw, whether it was a jibe or your actual opinion i'm not sure, but surely you can see where people are coming from when they then question your definition of a terrorist versus that of a freedom fighter.
I'm not here to pick a fight, and sorry if it seems this way, but i like a rational debate, and putting down things like that, even if it is to get a reaction, and then defending yourself instead of admitting a possible slip-up on your part isn't constructive...
I agree completely. I could have worded it better.
This, and Well, I guess I'm done in this thread.
this.
Is that saying that you don't want to engage in a rational, productive discussion about it? Because if not, then I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.
As far as I'm concerned, it'd be good to have a nice logical discussion on the topic, because it's interesting, it crosses a lot of grey areas, and if nothing else, it sheds light about the motives of a lot of very misunderstood people.
But if you don't want to carry on, then thanks at least for having the courtesy to say as much.
Short version; terrorists, like non-terrorists, do have aims (be they wide/narrow), the main question to ask is; Should we be trying to define terrorism by those aims, by the methods used to achieve those aims, or perhaps a mixture of the two?
Do the ends ever truly justify the means?
I've always defined terrorism by the act/method, rather than the motive. The colloquial definition of terrorism I've used in conversation generally covers destructive acts targeted primarily at civillians, as opposed to military personnel/property.
Whether the ends justify the means is a moral discussion, rather than a terrorist vs non-terrorist discussion. In the age old moral debate, do you shoot the terrorist to stop him detonating a bomb?
Edit: Sorry for the double post - deleted the new one.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magnerz
Hmm, yeah seems i went off on something meant for another topic, will put a lid on that side of things :)
Fresh words from Thekingotown are nice tho'. I get why you try to define terrorists by their means of getting a result, the problem i have with that definition, is the amount of cross-over between the two.
It would be nice to draw a line between military action, generally calling it war, and terrorists saying they simply use the willful targetting of civilians to achieve their aims, whereas the military don't. The fact is that the military might not blow up a car bomb next to a bus stop, but they will happily bombard entire cities in the full knowledge taht there will be some "collateral damage".
Essentially the military are more justified? because they don;t target civilians, non-military personal just happen to die en-masse as a result of their actions... not sure what to make of this, but if the argument is that the military creates fear as a by-product of targetted violence anti-military, as opposed to a primary means i'm going to take a far dimmer view of the military.
Set-battles are now almost a thing of the past, these were definately non-terrorist by their nature of military versus military. Perhaps the military is still the military, but can be convicted of terrorist actions... a scary thought to be sure.
I point to the dropping of the A-bombs (again) as it best demonstrates my point; targetted violence against distinct non-military personel in order to create fear and coerce the Japanese into surrendering. How, except in scale and the circumstance of war, (a glorified excuse for immoral actions in my mind) is that different in aims and execution (means) from a man strapping C4 to his chest and detonating in a shopping mall or a bus?
Maybe the debate is far more simple; freedom fighters are on the winning side, whereas terrorists are not. Now i can already see errors in this, but i'm still going to pose it as a real possibility. In the eyes of the majority, Freedom fighters are "right", or "justified" and terrorists are "wrong" or "unjustified". Could it be that it perspective is more important than actual events, not a nice realisation and one that i'd happily challenge myself but seems at the moment to be making more sense than it should...
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
War is by its very nature fear and terror driven. That does not mean that the average solider is thinking, "How can I terrorize this neighborhood?" Rather, they are thinking, "How can I befriend the local populace, improve their economic well being and thereby curtailing terrorism?" Often times that means killing that terrorist/ insurgent (not one and the same, they do cross over quite a lot though)
Face it, if you found out that a bomb maker lives in this house, you have this evidence and you know that within a week he is setting it off, wouldn't you break down his door and arrest him, perhaps shoot him if it was needed? Would you care that it might be 3 in the morning and your gunshots might startle the neighbors?
No, because you saved innocent people's lives. War is not happy, it is a scary and horrible thing and as such we should not try to glorify it and change that aspect around.
Furthermore, it was the CIA that created the secret prisons, behind the torture policies at Gitmo and those prisons, and it is the CIA that is holding people without trail- NOt the Private in the Marines. He might have arrested him out of necessity, but he is not holding him.
I am pretty sure that's not how an average solider thinks.
Post by
MyTie
Is that saying that you don't want to engage in a rational, productive discussion about it?Incredible. After 4 pages of what I would consider to be very rational debate, I explain that I've said everything I feel I need to say and that I was wrapping my part in it up, and you get this out of it?
Post by
MyTie
I did not misquote you did I? And I didn't put words in your (e)mouth? And I didn't attribute any ideas to you that you had not expressly put forward in words, did I?
Like I said, I could have worded it much better, and not been so hasty with that post. On the other hand, you could move on with the discussion past quoting a short post on page 1. I mean, we are on page 6 now. It's not like me admitting I should have worded it better will make any difference, though. After pages and pages of discussion about the topic that would reinforce my position that I don't think all terrorists are Islamic and that I was only using that as an example, we still will go back and point at the poorly worded post I made on page 1, and then turn around and play innocent when I question the application it has in the discussion now. Then, when the critics still press that post, I apologize. I mean, it definitely could be worded better, and I'd like to move on, so I'm willing to go out and say that, and admit it wasn't a perfect post. But what do I do when the discussion still doesn't move forward? What do I do when people still hammer me about it? The post wasn't
that
bad. Any rational person can see what I was meaning, even when it wasn't clearly indicated, due to me rushing the post. I accept fault in the misinterpretation. I don't accept fault in the continued misinterpretation. You may not have misquoted me, or put words in my mouth, but you are choosing to ignore everything I say after that point. It is exhausting my patience.
Post by
RedwoodElf
Terrorist: Someone who kills lots of innocent civilians, with the objective of causing Terror.
Freedom Fighter: Someone who kills members of the established government military, with the objective of bringing about political change.
I'd say there's a pretty distinct difference. If you send children off with bombs strapped to them to blow themselves up at the local Dominoes Pizza Store to kill as many innocent people as possible, you're a terrorist. If you are doing battle with the local oppressive government and
avoiding civilian/innocent casualties,
you're a freedom fighter.
"If Crime fighters fight Crime, and Fire Fighters fight fire, what do Freedom Fighters fight?" - George Carlin
Post by
Magnerz
@ redwoodelf; To think that the ultimate objective of a terrorist is cause terror with no greater aim in mind is either short-sighted, or to narrow down who can be included in its definition massively.
Freedom fighters, by your definition, are the ones with a higher aim.
Well let me ask you this, recently bombs went off in Iraq killing an estimated 147 people. This happened just outside of some Government building and thus many government officials died. Many innocent by-standers were also killed. The aims of the people behind the attacks was to essentially de-stabilise trust in the governement, an aim which has by the nature of the attacks, been achieved.
Are these people freedom fighters or terrorists? They killed many non-military personel to achieve a politically minded goal. You see terror as an objective, I percieve it to be one of many tools...
Post by
TheMediator
The thing is MyTie, you said it, and you definitely meant it. I don't even think you said you were sorry - all you've said is that you said that out of context (which we all know perfectly well you meant to say it) and that you're not perfect (but you haven't said you were wrong). You clearly express prejudice towards that group of people and in that respect I'd rank you worse off than me because you have hate for another group, whereas I only typically pity other groups (its not their fault they are the way they are, don't hate the player hate the game). I bet you regret leaving the military now that you can no longer take your hatred out upon them.
At the other new posts - no one wants to inflict fear upon others unless they're just completely malicious, and there's people on both sides of the table like that. They do it because that's what they have to do to achieve their objectives.
Post by
MyTie
The thing is MyTie, you said it, and you definitely meant it. I don't even think you said you were sorry - all you've said is that you said that out of context (which we all know perfectly well you meant to say it) and that you're not perfect (but you haven't said you were wrong). You clearly express prejudice towards that group of people and in that respect I'd rank you worse off than me because you have hate for another group, whereas I only typically pity other groups (its not their fault they are the way they are, don't hate the player hate the game). I bet you regret leaving the military now that you can no longer take your hatred out upon them.
I have nothing to say to you.
To everyone else, this is just him trolling. It doesn't represent my beliefs, nor does it accurately reflect anything I have said.
Post by
RedwoodElf
@ redwoodelf; To think that the ultimate objective of a terrorist is cause terror with no greater aim in mind is either short-sighted, or to narrow down who can be included in its definition massively.
Freedom fighters, by your definition, are the ones with a higher aim.
Well let me ask you this, recently bombs went off in Iraq killing an estimated 147 people. This happened just outside of some Government building and thus many government officials died. Many innocent by-standers were also killed. The aims of the people behind the attacks was to essentially de-stabilise trust in the governement, an aim which has by the nature of the attacks, been achieved.
Are these people freedom fighters or terrorists? They killed many non-military personel to achieve a politically minded goal. You see terror as an objective, I percieve it to be one of many tools...
It's not the method, it's the target.
Terrorsts TARGET civilians, Freedom fighters don't, and don't use WMD/explosives in public areas to cause as many casualties as possible. That's the real distinction I'm trying to point out.
Bombs in cities, regardless of the "Target" = Terrorism, due to their indiscriminate nature and the likelyhood of high numbers of civilian casualties.
Post by
Magnerz
It may sound like i'm trying to avoid actually reach a definition, so sorry if that seems to be the case, truth be told these things have a habit of being like slippery eels and escaping just when you think you have it pinned down.
I much like the direction your thoughts are going, that seems to make a lot of sense, to me at least. I just get all confuzzled when i put lots of theories into real world examples.
E.g.; America pretty much flattened Baghdad with aerial bombardment, they bombed an entire city. This is indicriminate in its nature and likely will result in a hugh number of civilian casualties. They conveniently hide behind the apparent "justification" of collateral damage, but the facts stand, innocent were likely to, and did, die in large numbers.
Does this make America's attacks, or perhaps even its entire campaign in Iraq a terrorist one? I'm not asking if the US military is a terrorist organisation, as i don't beleieve they are, more if those acts committed fall under a your definition of being a terrorist?
Apologies again if it sounds like i'm playing devil's advocate (something i do try to avoid where possible), seems like this is actually going somewhere helpful =)
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I hate to sound like a broken record, but where do we draw the line and say that someone IS a Terrorist and is Distinctly, In No Fashion, Under No Circumstances, a Freedom Fighter?
Labels are and always will be deceptive, which is why I try to never use them. People and organizations can do terrorist acts, but does that make them terrorists? The same people can give money to the homeless the next day, does that make them humanitarians?
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.