Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?

reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot


Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of UNLAWFUL violence.

That is the key there. Tyrants make laws. Therefore, if it is backed by queen bee, monarch effect of government, it is freedom fighting. And people haven't the faintest clue of what freedom is, anyway. If it is not lawful, not written by an official slave master, then it is terrorism. All ruling parties can engage in terrorism, whether government or low-level gang, no exceptions. Both engage in thuggish behavior. Everybody needs to stop fighting for a whore's drama, unless they deem themselves a beast.

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by radarloveguy

 

The thread was more to discuss about what difference is between a freedom fighter and terrorist/ armed resistance etc.

However, keeping in mind the armed resistance movements in history I have to disagree that the "only effective change", can be through non-violent political action.

You can take current example of Tibet, what have they been able to achieve through non-violence means? Even during India's freedom struggle there were 2 banners, Non Violent led by Mahatma Gandhi and armed resistance for eg. Chandrashekhar Azad. Both were equally responsible to gain freedom of India.

That saying I do not propose violence but only the people under digress would be most suitable to choose the way the follow.

I completely agree. Non-Violence for instance, will not stop a ravenous psychopath such as Hitler, and as a matter of fact, the armed opposition against him almost failed as well. There is most certainly a time and a place for taking up arms, and that should never be forgotten.

In my view, a "Terrorist" is an individual who goes after innocent women and children, and is in fact indiscriminate in exactly who they attack, maim, or kill. A "Terrorist" does not care who their actions harm, nor do they care if it harms themselves (Which is often the case, more so than not). They enjoy inflicting as much of the aforementioned carnage as possible, and they in fact take pleasure in torturing and seeing others suffer under their stance.

A "Freedom Fighter" on the other hand would be our Founding Fathers and those who struggled for American Independence. They fought against a tyrannical government who abused their power over a bereaved citizenry, yet they conducted themselves with an upstanding set of morals and ethics along the way. A "Freedom Fighter" is someone who will always go out of their way to protect their way of life from destruction, but they do so in a manner which displays concern for the innocent, and compassion for the weak and surrendering.

Aside from semantics, the true difference between a "Terrorist" and a "Freedom Fighter" is what exists within ones heart and soul.

Nazis called French resistance terrorists...

enough said

Watch this.

A few days back I seen a video on the news from Somalia, people were in a building for a diploma graduation.

Suddenly BOOM and almost everybody is dead.

Done by Muslim extremists who think freedom is a nasty word and the Sharia is the way to go.

Can you call those people freedom fighters?

reply to post by Grey Magic



NO : but you should take care of the terrorist in you own country, before going to war on other country.

( i don't know if you see what i mean : i can be a lot more pragmatic than than the mass, and there are facts than is not accepted today : so i will not talk about this. Maybe you will understand. I critizes the us method , and us vision, but not all the falcon global political decision)

THe problem is not allways the others.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

Freedom fighter is fighting oppression of his nation. (no civil casualties)

Terrorists oppress a nation with terror. (civil casualties)

that explains it better?

I don't know if anyone mentioned this but it is also important since state terrorism usually sparks more terrorism:

Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived enemies," which can be directed against both domestic and external enemies.

hence a lot of governments/states around the globe can be called terrorists, including US, UK and Israel, but their citizens call it fighting for freedom, and they call their victims terrorists, which is absurd

like it or not, there is always a side that starts the spiral of violence first, and in most cases it is state terrorism

Originally posted by Grey Magic
Freedom fighter is fighting oppression of his nation. (no civil casualties)

Terrorists oppress a nation with terror. (civil casualties)

that explains it better?

really, so why is msm every time western soldier die from a freedom fighter bomb calling it terrorism then?

because they are abusing the term for their agenda...

reply to post by Grey Magic



No : you learn well the lesson from fox, and corporte media and corporate thinking.

Terrorism is used to everything.

I just want to describe you the word "violence" :

The word violence comes from the Latin word "vis" which means first, the force without regard to the legitimacy of its use.

The violence, which involves the use of force may be legitimate in self-defense or necessity by law in case of resistance to oppression under the doctrine of human rights.

For the state, the elite, the mass media, : any use of the violence is terrorism ?

Why because they have the power : so they defend their power, by defending the political statu quo

I don't think the real solution for people is the gandhy's solutions : because civil disobediance is in communication/media, nothing more : and don't forget they control the media.

I accept that killing civilian is a crime against humanity : you should watch the country not so far from you. ( and in history )

8 millions Indigenous peoples of the Americas, on their territory were maybe terrorists : but they have been killed.

ANd because of brain washing and ideology : the people didn't notice the crime they done. Cool , next one.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

I typed in earliest terrorist. This is what the search turned up.

From this site---terrorism RESEARCH www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php
Early History of Terrorism

Terror in Antiquity: 1st -14th Century AD
The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.

The Assassins were the next group to show recognizable characteristics of terrorism, as we know it today. A breakaway faction of Shia Islam called the Nizari Ismalis adopted the tactic of assassination of enemy leaders because the cult's limited manpower prevented open combat. Their leader, Hassam-I Sabbah, based the cult in the mountains of Northern Iran. Their tactic of sending a lone assassin to successfully kill a key enemy leader at the certain sacrifice of his own life (the killers waited next to their victims to be killed or captured) inspired fearful awe in their enemies.

All I can say is that the Taliban and many other groups of people who are considered terrorists in this day and age are no different than LOTS of cultures that have spanned the expanse of humanity. The Taliban treat women horribly? They have some very 'savage' customs supposedly? Well how are these customs and these cultures different than some of the things Native Americans did to each other. Or how about the Aztecs and the Mayans? The Native Americans were considered savages by most white people during that period of history. And now we look upon middle eastern people and culture and tribes in Afghanistan in much the same light.

I think there is something truly beautiful about the rustic, nomadic, simple life of an Afghani farmer or tribe. That's not to say I have the same views of the Taliban or what we collectively thin of as terrorists. But I have a lot of respect for certain aspects of the tribal and nomadic way of life many Afghanis and middle easterners live. Our civilized view of the world is so all too often subjective. Culture is subjective. As if western society is so perfect with out violence, pornography, poverty, gluttony, materialism etc.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


This is an afterward reading.

The winner always write the history : but if he is the winner : what has he really done in order to win ?

Roman empire ? America indigenous ? Russia farmer ? Jews ? Etc.

ANd their own citizens ? Do you count the systemic violence, the structural violence that kills billion of people ? This may not be terrorism ?

To me : it is.

Choose well your camp : i choose freedom.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

as the late & great George Carlin once said:

"If fire fighters fight fire, and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight???"

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

This is an afterward reading.

The winner always write the history : but if he is the winner : what has he really done in order to win ?

Roman empire ? America indigenous ? Russia farmer ? Jews ? Etc.

ANd their own citizens ? Do you count the systemic violence, the structural violence that kills billion of people ? This may not be terrorism ?

To me : it is.

Choose well your camp : i choose freedom.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Janis Joplin
Have you read the history of the Marxist's? Did Bolshevism start with terrorism?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Bolchevism ? Just them : take a look at the List of events named massacres, then you cacul the ratio with List of terrorist incidents ( state terrorism : 99.99%, individual terrorism : 0.001%)

You will see that england has invented and used concentration camp.etc...

Do you know the history of libertarian and anarchists ?

I don't want a war with other people ok : i don't care ideology, i don't care creating a state, having power, and i don't to control anybody : so do what you want, ok : this is freedom.


I know the word freedom is like democracy. People can't remember what they mean.

You see i am really not autoritarian, or communist : but that doesn't mean i am a sheep and i accept the corporate capitalism / that is now global : and there are terrible concequences for the individuals in us and everywhere around the world. (the environmentalism is for me an other debat or an ideology).

An ideology is an ideology.


The position of libertarian is : " he is a stranger, and look special" : no problem i don't care !

The position of people with ideology : "He looks strange, we need to control his life, if one man of his community is dangerous we begin a war" : Resistance is futile, Extremination, Heil hitler !

These are the extremity of course : but if you think in term of ideology : you will be "racist", or you will accept "racism", or war against "stranger".

This is far from humanism !

( and i don't say we don't need to protect ourself,and others with no army )
Hope you don't defend your country ( and its ideology/system) before you, and your capacity of thinking by yourself.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by psychederic]

Originally posted by radarloveguy
reply to post by December_Rain

 

The answer is within your post - ...

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Here "noncombatant" implies civilians and unarmed military support staff.

A lot of terror crimes are indiscriminate . They take out even members
of their own cause .
The only effective change , can be through non-violent political action ,
where all sides negotiate . e.g Northern Ireland [as soon as peace is
announced and followed , real change can happen]

The United Nations cannot , and will not , back up a cause that
is criminal in nature .


... =

[edit on 5-12-2009 by radarloveguy]

You're a funny guy.

The UN supports the war in Afghanistan - what more evidence is needed to totally discredit your assertion that the UN doesn't engage in illegal stuff?

The motives for invading Afghanistan are evil - where you place profit and gain over the lives of ordinary people - that is evil.

The objectives in Afghanistan are manifold - among them are; control and profit from the opium trade, destabilise the region with a view to install pro globalist government - and seize political control of Pakistan and its nukes, create a foil for China and India, preventing them safely consolidating assets and alliances in the region, prepare the ground for land invasion of Iran (an invasion that would be justified by lies regarding Iran's nuclear program), control in ground resource assets, close the ground to Russian troop movement that might occur in support of Iran - and finally of course, keep spending so that weapons manufacturers (who have powerful political lobbyists) may profit.

All in all - it is nothing about freedom for Afghans, it is nothing to do with 'terrorists' - it is purely about greed and empire.

The UN is an organization that is an integral part of the NWO - their goal is global domination - financially, politically and practically.

The US is a terrorist state, its policy of bombing causing huge loss of civilian life is one of the most blatant of its many crimes.

Almost all 'terrorists' are those controlled directly or indirectly by the western globalists.

Those who are labelled terrorists, are in the large part oppressed people fighting for freedom from slavery to the globalists - either imposed through debt to the IMF, World Bank, unbalanced trade agreements - or politically through usurpation of democratically elected or popular governments, or directly imposed by military means.

When the people of the western world are able to finally free their minds from the propaganda, they will recoil with horror at the violence and death perpetrated in their names, and with their support - by the true terrorists - the nations of the western world.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


Excuse me, but where the hell do you get off claiming Native Americans mistreated women? Most Native American societies were matriarchies with women holding the right to vote.

Most Anglo women captured by Natives chose to stay with them when offered the choice, because they had more rights and respect than that offered by Anglo society.

Sheesh, do some research, before you sound so ignorant.

www.bluecloud.org...

www.snowwowl.com...

Trust me, Native American women are held in high respect, always have been. Among my people, the Inde, Apache to you, men went to live with their wife's family, not the other way round. Any man abusing his wife would find himself facing irate in-laws, and would be sent packing quick.

Euros and Americans might mistreat and disrespect their women, but don't put that crap on us. That stuff belongs to Christianity and their misogynistic worldview.

If you want to see terrorism, piss off a bunch of Native American female elders: you'll be terrorized for the foreseeable future, or until you make amends.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by apacheman]

i dont really see a difference between the two. look at the afghan mujahideen for example... in the 80's they were freedom fighters... now they are terrorists.. terrorists can be freedom fighters and vice versa depening on the whims of a countries media and a governments agenda so.. there is no difference..

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

 

Excuse me, but where the hell do you get off claiming Native Americans mistreated women? Most Native American societies were matriarchies with women holding the right to vote.

Most Anglo women captured by Natives chose to stay with them when offered the choice, because they had more rights and respect than that offered by Anglo society.

Sheesh, do some research, before you sound so ignorant.

www.bluecloud.org...

www.snowwowl.com...

Trust me, Native American women are held in high respect, always have been. Among my people, the Inde, Apache to you, men went to live with their wife's family, not the other way round. Any man abusing his wife would find himself facing irate in-laws, and would be sent packing quick.

Euros and Americans might mistreat and disrespect their women, but don't put that crap on us. That stuff belongs to Christianity and their misogynistic worldview.

If you want to see terrorism, piss off a bunch of Native American female elders: you'll be terrorized for the foreseeable future, or until you make amends.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by apacheman]

Not stickin up for anyone here. I think the dude was talking more about sacrificing virgins and captured slaves in central America.
Nothing new there though. Every human race or group of people went through that phase somewhere back in their heritage. It is totally a part of human developement.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]