Nelson Mandela taken off of US list of terrorists
http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10984&format=html

Not only to the victor goes the spoils but the writing of history also.

 

Show me where true freedom exists....(apart from in the hearts and minds of a relative few outstanding individuals)...... and I'll show you where terrorism doesn't.

Is not all forced labour a form of terrorism?

Slavery certainly is.

 

i believe a terrorist is some who terrorizes a person to get them to do wat they want!

anybody other then that does not deserve the title of terrorist

 

Hmmm.....So.....would that make any given government in the world a terrorist organization?

 

Most governments - at least in the West - operate largely on co-operation, because most people are sensible enough to see that a government is a necessary evil.

 

I don't care it it works or not; it just happens to be true, regardless.

 

Doing my devil's advocate thing again but by your definition:

Hiroshima was designed to shock the Japanese into surrender and scare the world into submission to the US post-war plan. Terrorism? Terrorists?

Fire Bombing of Dresden was intended to strike fear and terror into the germans and hasten a ceasefire. Terrorism? Terrorists?

Bulldozing houses in the West bank and Gaza is designed to intimidate the Palestinians into not fighting back and reduce support for the militias. Terrorism? terrorists?

Bombing in Kosova authorised by Clinton and Blair to impose on a hostile population the idea that they should stop a genocide they were committing by scaring them. Terrorism? Terrorists?

I'm neither defending nor attacking any of these actions per-se. I'm simply pointig out the flaw in that particular description of Terrorism.

The truth, I'm afraid, is that a terrorist is someone who is not in control of the media reporting on their actions.

 

I am pretty damn sensible and educated and I don't see government as a necessary evil, I prefer to think if people had not been dumbed down by the government and media the majority would be quite capable of being self-governing.
Please don't think of Western government as a situation of cooperation since we largely in part do what the government mandates in our name and go along with it because there are repercussions for actions that we the citizens did not have a voice in decreeing.
"Only when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest will men be truly free" Words to live by I think.

 

The following is lifted from an article by a journalist called Brian Whitaker. I can only agree with what he says
Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "government by intimidation". Today it usually refers to intimidation of governments.

The first recorded use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was in 1795, relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. Of course, the Jacobins, who led the government at the time, were also revolutionaries and gradually "terrorism" came to be applied to violent revolutionary activity in general. But the use of "terrorist" in an anti-government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and 1883 (referring to Russia).

In the absence of an agreed meaning, making laws against terrorism is especially difficult. The latest British anti-terrorism law gets round the problem by listing 21 international terrorist organisations by name. Membership of these is illegal in the UK.

There are six Islamic groups, four anti-Israel groups, eight separatist groups and three opposition groups. The list includes Hizbullah, which though armed, is a legal political party in Lebanon, with elected members of parliament.

Among the separatist groups, the Kurdistan Workers Party - active in Turkey - is banned, but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish organisations active in Iraq. Among opposition groups, the Iranian People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC, which happens to be financed by the United States.

Issuing such a list does at least highlight the anomalies and inconsistencies behind anti-terrorism laws. It also points towards a simpler - and perhaps more honest - definition: terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of.

 

No, the problem is that is not true. It is only perception. Those that write the history books also write the dictionaries, you see.

These are great examples of the very essence of this thread.

It is threads like these and contributions like this that make me proud to be a member of this forum.

 

I could not agree more!

Just reading what has been posted so far has now got me questioning my own understanding of the two terms - Terrorist & Freedom Fighter. There was never any ambiguity in my mind, but now I'm thinking differently. So, thank you to everyone who has posted... It's good to know that one's opinions CAN still be influenced..

 

I deny that it is a flaw.

The first, the Hiroshima bombing, unquestionably WAS an act of terrorism. Just because it's a terrorist act doesn't automatically mean it's an evil one.

The bombing of Dresden wasn't very much motivated by any attempt to win the war; it was largely revenge for the Blitz. One of Britain's least shining moments in the last couple of centuries.

Kosovo, and the West Bank activities, I'm not qualified to judge on. I was always led to believe that the Kosovo bombings were legitimate military attacks on legitimate military targets, but if they were in fact intended more to frighten the Serbs into submission than to cripple their military might, then yes, they qualify as terrorist measures.

I maintain, and will continue to maintain, that you cannot equate "terrorist" with "evil." Terrorism is a means, not an end; and if frightening the bejesus out of Japan by annihilating 150,000 residents of Hiroshima, meant no necessity for a ground invasion that would likely have killed half a million of them plus untold American soldiers, then it was a noble and worthy terrorist act. Such things can exist.

 

And the winner is!!

My freedom fighter. Your terrorist right..??
My Terrorist . Your freedom fighter...
And add time and see who right.

 

If he's using terror tactics, yes. Doesn't mean I don't support his cause though; it just means he's using terror tactics.

 

Crap.

Governments in the west...or elsewhere....... do NOT rely on co-operation.......

The whole principle of government relies on the idea of divide and conquer....

always has done.

Should anyone have to put up with that kind of evil?

 

I did say that MOST people are sensible enough ... not all.

 

Ok...Fair enough.......but the fact of the matter is that 'most' people just happen to be those subjugated to the will of others.

Tell me what is sensible about that?

 

Here is my simple minded take on this subject.

freedom fighters:
1. are usually supported by some sort of organized goverment, IE: during the american revolution the army was controlled by washington under authority of the congress of the time.

2. have never engaged for the most part in acts of violence against non-combatants such as women and children.

3. Take part in their acts of resistance during times of established and declared wars or "confilcts" or, "police actions"

Terrorist:

1. supported by individuals or small non-majority groups outside of any government group. Working for their own agenda.

2. Primarily target non-combatants, hence the word terror in the name, they do not wish to make social change, but to scare people into submission.

3. Have never attempted to work any solution out or publish grevences with the world court, NATO, United nations, etc,,,,,,why because they are not recognized as any form of goverment which is supported by any public vote.

4. And strictly in my view of things, I firmly believe that they are all cowards, it takes little or no personal commitment to plant a bomb in a school or hospital then run and hide and watch the show. Its kind of like me, hiding behind a wall and just clubbing the first person to come by with a baseball bat just because I felt like it.

 

Here's the flaw with your definition. It is primarily your's alone. That is the problem with trying to define these two terms. There is no concrete definition to what is an abstract description of human conflict.

The problem with this is not only any use of force, but even the threat of force uses some form of terror or fear to accomplish it's end.

This is where it appears to me your views are clouded by exactly what governments want you to believe. Its never that simple or as clearly defined.

 

those 2 words are man made labels which definitions change depending on perspective.


same as good and evil. neither exists outside our social spectrum