If fire fighters fight fire and and if crime fighters fight crime what do freedom fighters fight?

How ever I believe George bush has turned this country in to the united states of embarrassment

 

I wonder how the Vietnamese would feel about that when applied to what US soldiers did during that "police action" Need I remind anyone of My Lai Massacre ?
Freedom Fighters are rarely supported by the incumbent government, often they are supported by a Western government who wants to overthrow a government through the use of surrogates.
A great example of this is the School of the Americas,

I like this one and for this reason. Americans have no concept of the dedication it takes suicide bombers to carry through with their actions. We have no such commitment in this country to that degree where the average person has this strength of will. To compare yourself with a baseball bat and hitting someone because "you felt like it" truly shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of their driving motivation and purpose within their actions.

 

This is a pretty good discussion...I'm glad I was absent for awhile.

 

Thanks for putting this up especially the School of the Americas. I've been interested in it ever since the US invaded Panama to remove Manual Noriega. One of the reports I read said that the reason we invaded was because he was going to reveal what he knew about the CIA/Cocaine connection but the reason we would never hear from him again was because what he knew and could tell about the School of the Americas and George WH Bush's connection to it.

This has been a very good thread Kimiko. One of the better discussions we've had with what I consider great insight.

 

Indeed they would gladly fight their oppressors using scimatars aganist broadswords, but it seems poor AK's vs F-22's are a bit uneven in match, so the nobel ones are killed already.

 

Out of curiosity, What would Mahamta Ghandi have been called? A terrorist or a freedom fighter?

 

Given his predeliction for nonviolence, it would be difficult to assign the word "terrorist" to him...but he did advocate the overthrow of the established regime.

 

Let us not forget what Mohandis wrote to his son in a letter
”When the choice is between cowardice and violence, I would strongly recommend violence.”

Ghandi was a pacifist but he also accepted the fact that at some point things may have to become violent to achieve their ends. He preferred and supported the idea that talking and diplomacy could never be truly exhausted.
As for a following comment about MLK Jr. He as well was not entirely a pacifist and did believe in more "proactive" solutions if you get my drift.

@Stumbler, you're welcome for the link not enough people know about and understand the impact that SOA has on South American nations and more importantly the citizens.
Another thing I would like to point out is this, if a group of "freedom fighters" is being supplied and propped up by a foreign nation which has a vested financial interest in the freedom fighters success, is it truly freedom then that they are fighting for? In that situation I feel they are merely trading one master for another who happens to let the people believe they are free from tyranny.

 

I may have to research that and see what the British called him. It seems to me they did treat him as a criminal.

But this is a great question.

 

Not sure if he was ever described as a terrorist as the methods he advocated to demonstrate against British rule were non-violent, e.g. non-cooperation and boycotting british made goods in favour of locally produced ones. His conviction and imprisonment in 1922 was I believe on the charge of sedition based on his articles in the Young India publication.

And here's one of my favourite quotes from the great man:

"Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test: recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj for the hungry and spiritually starving millions. Then you will find your doubts and … self melting away"

 

I can live with the following commentary and definition of the terms.


https://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/terrorist-definition.htm
Definition of "Terrorist": Let's Have Some Clarity

October 5, 2001
"Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.
This is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the use, of the word "terrorist."
Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.
In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:
Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.
Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.
Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.
Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.
Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.
While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.
Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.
And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.
Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.
At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.
All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.

 

I would say a terrorist is someone who makes indiscriminate attacks on civilians even if the cause is just.

A guerilla or a rebel specializes in military targets even if the cause is unjust.

Non-violent civil disobedience only works against an opponent who has moral standards one can appeal to. It worked for the causes of Indian independence and civil rights in the United States. It would be very effective for the Palestinians. It would not have worked against the Nazis.

 

Apart from the yellow font I think you've just stunned me on two levels:

1) I think that is a really good definition that ought to be adopted by everyone.

2) That's from the "Blast the Right!" guy! What are you doing posting quotes from the "Blast the Right!" guy? Don't you think he's Satan or something?

My universe has just been shaken to it's very foundations.

 

It is yellow because I couldn't see it in white when I pasted it, thus yellow.

(I missed the last three words)

Why does it surprise you??

You obviously don't read what I post, you seem to sift through them to find what you disagree with and then flame it.

 

Argue with it, not flame it. Flaming implies that I don't reason with you, and although you don't recognise reason often, that is what I'm doing.

I read what you post in threads that interest me. I just don't see you as a "Blast the Right!" listener, based on most of what I have read. If I'm wrong then there's hope for the world yet.

So are you a listener? Is Jack converting you to being a rational radical?

 

Its a good question, and I would have to say terrorist, sad that it is.

 

Actually, I try to listen, read and view opposing thought on every subject. Frequently I quote or use material from someone who is ideologicly opposed to me, just because we disagree on some things does not mean we disagree on all.

If you consider a fiscal and political conservative as a "Right wing nut" then that's me. On social issues I am usually more centrist or even liberal. Social programs are a necessary part of our culture, mismanaged ones are, to me, criminal. They take what should be going to those who need and diverting it to those who greed

 

I don't consider all fiscal conservatives to be right wing nuts and I agree about mismanaged social programs.

I apologise for my incorrect assumption that you wouldn't see any good in Blast the Right.

You truly have surprised me, though.

 

A terrorist doesn't give a fuck, a freedom fighter does what's nessasary to abtain freedom but yet a freedom fight might not give a fuck just as long as he abtains his freedom which would then make him a terrorist. Ummmm that's something more for me to think on.

 

Far be it from me to crosspost (the greatest forum sin!) so as an answer, I refer you to this, my earlier response on what I assume to be that thread--> https://forum.xnxx.com/showthread.php?p=1101908#post1101908

And for the record, Kimiko, reading your posts and how you wickedly say what I want to say before I get to say it.....damn, girl, if you were bubblegum, I'd pop you all day! :rose: