Respect for terrorists....
I know that this may be a very sickening topic for a lot of you since this is an American dominated board. However, it is a discussion board and not a be popular board. I hope the mods will also realise that censorship never helped anyone.
What makes a terrorist. Well the way I see it, you have to be part of a minority. On top of that you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements. Finally, what you are fighting for has to be the unpopular thing in the region you fight for it. Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none. It's just that the part of the media that believes in your goal calls you a freedom fighter and the rest calls you a terrorist.
Being from a country with a, so called, terrorist presence in it I feel that I know what I'm talking about since I experienced it first hand.
I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.
Do I think they are right? No I don't. I don't support violence over diplomacy ever. But I do respect their conviction.
I think we should all not forget that without terrorists America would not have gained it's independance. Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder to beat without the resistances in Europe. In those times, these groups were also seen as terrorists.
What makes a terrorist. Well the way I see it, you have to be part of a minority. On top of that you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements. Finally, what you are fighting for has to be the unpopular thing in the region you fight for it. Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none. It's just that the part of the media that believes in your goal calls you a freedom fighter and the rest calls you a terrorist.
Being from a country with a, so called, terrorist presence in it I feel that I know what I'm talking about since I experienced it first hand.
I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.
Do I think they are right? No I don't. I don't support violence over diplomacy ever. But I do respect their conviction.
I think we should all not forget that without terrorists America would not have gained it's independance. Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder to beat without the resistances in Europe. In those times, these groups were also seen as terrorists.
Comments
I was shocked at the scale of the events, but personally I think 'terrorist' retalliation was entirely predictable. It was also entirely predictable that George Bush Jr. would dismiss any attack on America as a battle of 'good vs. evil.' But America (Gov't, Military) is not a pillar of 'goodness' and ethical/moral 'purity'. Nor was the attack on Sept. 11th an attack on freedom, democracy etc. It was a statement to the American Gov't that they are not untouchable/indestructable. That although their military is the strongest, they cannot impose their ways (global culture) on every country when it is so obviously a game America will always win. Mexico is America's bitch. Canada is America's bitch. So many countries are, and when a few small ones refuse to bend over and take it in the @$$, I can understand why.
It's a terrible shame that thousands had to die in New York. I'm not 'down' w/ the Taliban (who are certainly fuct up), or terrorist acts, but I can understand their rationale.
There is no such thing as moral equivalency. But that's only half the tale: there is also no such thing as a star-trek style prime directive. To free Afganistan only to leave its future in its own inept hands will lead to more suffering for them, and -- don't kid yourself -- for us. We have a duty to stamp our style on those whose own ideology has brought forth nothing but disaster upon disaster. We are Rome. Or at least the USA is, the rest of us are provinces. If we really believe in the virtues of our democracy, then there is, and ought to be, no tolerance for religious fundamentalists regimes.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>What makes a terrorist... you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements.... </strong><hr></blockquote>
This really is the key distinction. In the case of terrorists "fight in an unconventional way" means you attack civilian targets rather than military ones.
[quote]<strong>... Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none... </strong><hr></blockquote>
If the tactics of a so-called freedom fighter involves killing civilians this is true. But not all freedom fighters stoop so low.
p.s. Good post, Matsu.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
What makes a terrorist. Well the way I see it, you have to be part of a minority. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh? So were giving them minority status are we? Trying to illicit some sympathy for them by tagging them as a "minority". Racial minority? Political minority? Ideological minority? Doesn't matter right? The terrorist are "minorities" and there for deserving on our unconditional sympathy. Or are you trying to argue that terrorism is the only way they could get their "message" out because they are a "minority".
Political Correctness gone WAY too far.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>On top of that you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements. Finally, what you are fighting for has to be the unpopular thing in the region you fight for it. Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isn?t huh? As far as I can tell bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda has their freedom. So what are they fighting for? OR better yet who are they fighting? A bunch of people going to work in the morning? They?re fighting some woman trying to earn a living by answering a phone?
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>It's just that the part of the media that believes in your goal calls you a freedom fighter and the rest calls you a terrorist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrorist tend to do their acts to create terror. Where as freedom fighters tend to fight for freedom, not against it. Killing a bunch of people going to work fights against freedom.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Being from a country with a, so called, terrorist presence in it I feel that I know what I'm talking about since I experienced it first hand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what I?m talking about too because I experienced. Killing a bunch of innocent people trying to earn a living is a 100% illegitimate way to achieve a political agenda.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They think it?s right to kill women. They think it?s right to kill children. They think it?s right to kill fathers, mothers, son daughters all of whom have no relation at all to their jihad.
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Do I think they are right? No I don't. I don't support violence over diplomacy ever. But I do respect their conviction. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You just spent the whole page praising them and now you try to reform yourself as being a moral person by saying you don?t think it?s ?right?. Do you respect a rapist then? After all many rapist are a determined lot. Are we to respect people just because they are determined?
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I think we should all not forget that without terrorists America would not have gained it's independance. Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder to beat without the resistances in Europe. In those times, these groups were also seen as terrorists.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fight for independence did not include mass murder. The people fighting Nazi Germany behind the lines were saboteurs not murders.
You?re just a simple minded fool.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
The cowards hiding in Afghanistan: Are we holding their land or holding their people captive? No. Do we refuse to let them practice their barbaric and backwards form of Islam on their own lands? No.
They don't like what we do, well guess what, it works both ways. The only difference is we're big enough and strong enough to get shit done right. Do you think things would be better rather than worse if the tables were turned?
As an aside:
What actions by Revolutionary War figures qualify them as terrorists?
Some Latin Americans would beg to differ.
[quote]I'm ok will the US being a superpower because for the most part we don't abuse it too much <hr></blockquote>
We do abuse it, on a regular basis.
[quote]This really is the key distinction. In the case of terrorists "fight in an unconventional way" means you attack civilian targets rather than military ones.<hr></blockquote>
Nope.
It means you don't send tank colums after your enemy, but it does not mean you fail to restrict your activity to millitary targets.
And don't say you're not.
<strong>Some Latin Americans would beg to differ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Slow down with that. We've done some bad things in Latin America but never anything on that scale. Not even close.
We armed them which allowed them to kill each other more than they already were killing each other.
[quote]<strong>We do abuse it, on a regular basis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you are the premier superpower in the world things aren't always so black and white in terms of good and bad.
Painting it black is just as ignorant as painting it white.
Terrorists are cowards. Wife-beaters are cowards although they may be "brave" enough to use physical force. Cowardice is a state of mind.
<strong>
It means you don't send tank colums after your enemy, but it does not mean you fail to restrict your activity to millitary targets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. You are describing guerrilla tactics. Terrorists may use guerrilla tactics but not everyone who fights this way is a terrorist. The distinguishing characteristic that sets terrorists apart is their willingness to attack noncombatants.
<strong>The distinguishing characteristic that sets terrorists apart is their willingness to attack noncombatants.</strong><hr></blockquote>So, dropping atom bombs on Japan was terrorism then.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also cirtual military factories...not to mention Japan really needed a wake-up call...see past atrocities in Korea, China, Phillippines...To this day, I don't think I've ever had a coversation with my Japanese friends about WWII...they just don't talk about it, not even if you try to force them to talk about it...whereas plenty of people here are willing to talk about Vietnam and Somalia.
An eye for an eye, Hammurabi's Laws aren't going to change.
The US is powerful because of exploitation, not because we attacked other nations. If the civilians in Kunduz an Kandahar want the bombings to stop, they're going to have to flush out the Taliban, otherwise they are NOT "innocent civilians."
You can explain the difference between a "freedom fighter" and terrorist, a "saboteur" and "terrorist", a "guerrilla" fighter and a terrorist until you're blue in the face. The people here will justify all terrorism because they are blinded by their anti-american hatred. They hate the US because of their own reasons and there for anything that kills people in america is justified without inspection.
Because someone understands why someone does something does not mean they agree with what they do.
[quote].....and that killing innocent people is an appropriate way to get achieve a political goal.<hr></blockquote>
Show me one example in this thread.
[quote]Also that the US "got what it had coming"<hr></blockquote>
U.S foreign policy has supported corrupt regiemes and illegal millitary occupations in the Middle East. Not surprising that some people are a bit pissed off at that.
[quote]and that there is little difference between a military and civilian target.<hr></blockquote>
Once again, you are manufacturing a statement.
[quote]The people here will justify all terrorism because they are blinded by their anti-american hatred.<hr></blockquote>
No one here has tried to justify what happened on September 11th. Some have tried to explain why people are so pissed off at the U.S.
If you can't see the distinction, than this discussion is above your level of understanding and you should find something on your intellectual level to debate.
[quote]They hate the US because of their own reasons and there for anything that kills people in america is justified without inspection. <hr></blockquote>
Once again, a manufactured statement.
Boy, we should just stop posting, you are apparently capable of putting words in our mouths for us.
Saves us the effort, you know.
<strong>There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The IRA are perhaps freedom fighters by your definition, but they are most definitely also terrorists.
[quote]ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<hr></blockquote>
And I understand it's not just about dictionary definitions. If you target innocent citizens of any nation, whether they're willing subjects of their governors or not, that is terrorism and an utterly evil act.
<strong>The US is powerful because of exploitation</strong><hr></blockquote>
What on earth does this mean? What is "exploitation"?