Torbay weblog davecathy

Aug 8, 2006 at 08:36 o\clock

FREEDOM FIGHTER OR TERRORIST

by: davecathy

Everyone seems to be having great difficulty defining the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Perhaps I am being simplistic, but it seems fairly obvious to me

FREEDOM FIGHTERS are surely those people who believe rightly or wrongly that their freedom has been curtailed or limited, and are willing to fight to obtain it. This would include the French Resistance, the followers of Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther KIng, even the Dalai Lama, the Suffragettes, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, etc-- an almost endless list. Such freedom fighters fight their oppressors by word or by action.

TERRORISTS may well be freedom fighters, but not content with fighting their oppressors, they unacceptably cross the line into terrorising the innocent (defenceless) civilian population.

When the IRA targetted the British Establishment, (army, police, etc) they acted as freedom fighters. When they resorted to blowing up women and children, they became terrorists.

Of course, in any conflict or theatre of war, innocent people get killed, but when civilians are DELIBERATELY targetted, or the fighters hide behind the skirts of the civilian population then they are not acting in a human or respectable way. They are cowards, with no respect for themselves or anyone else.

I refuse to take sides in the Israeli-Palestianian conflict, simply because there is right and wrong on both sides, and in any case, playing the blame game gets us nowhere, but it does seem to me that at the moment, Islam is at war with Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, as well as at war with itself.   

Comments for this entry:

  1. insider2 wrote at Aug 8, 2006 at 17:30 o\clock:I think a freedom fighter is a terrorist viewed through the lens of history. And Islam is not the first religion to be at war, even with itself. Hinduism vs Islam, Christianity vs Judaism, Catholicism vs Protestantism.



    I rail against Israel because they (and the Americans) always seem to take a \"holier than thou\" attitude, and WHEN will the stop playing the \"holocaust sympathy\" card.
  2. davecathy wrote at Aug 8, 2006 at 20:41 o\clock:We must agree to disagree. Fighting for freedom does NOT necessarily involve the use of terror and the deliberate killing of the innocent.

    If you have a grievance against me, fight me, do not kill my wife and children because it is easier. That is unspeakable, and far more serious than having a \'holier than thou attitude\', and railing against one side or the other gets us precisely nowhere.
  3. insider2 wrote at Aug 9, 2006 at 02:48 o\clock:I find it ironic the both the United States and Israel were founded by people who, at the time, were considered to be terrorists (OK, in the 18th century they were called \"rebels\") and in the case of Israel they did actually kill civilians as well as military people.



    That said, do you think that the tactics being used by Israel in the present conflict can do anything but make the situation worse and increase the resentment of, and hence the threat to Israel.
  4. enzedder wrote at Aug 9, 2006 at 09:01 o\clock:By your definition then, the US and Israeli governments are terrorists as they have in the past deliberately targeted innocent civilians.
  5. davecathy wrote at Aug 9, 2006 at 11:24 o\clock:Sure, IF indeed they have used terror as a tactic, yes. It is not MY definition , but a dictionary definition. A terrorist is someone who uses terror as a tactic.

    I am not defending anyone, America, Israel, or the Arabs, I am just saying that terrorism is never justified, period.

    The bombing of Dresden, for example, was an unjustified terrorist act.

    Why are people so hung up on the past, and blame? Surely all that matters is that we take the current problem and search for a solution that is fair and honourable to both sides
  6. jamryn wrote at Aug 9, 2006 at 14:00 o\clock:InSider I also question if you are using the correct word or meaning of the word - in calling 18 century Americans terrorests?



    In the the 17th and 18th century - to the best of my knowlege - people were escaping the English ( king ) who demanded that every one attend and worship in ( in the one He founded )his church.



    If they dident comply - to many it ment death. To me that would define Terrorism.



    I do agree with you Dave that we are to easely stuck in the past and fixing blame.



    It\'s - no - no - no - it\'s not my fault. I take no responsability. I\'ll just point a finger away from me - type of thing.



    Have we lost - forever - the ability to find a fair and honnerable compremise - for all concerned?
  7. insider2 wrote at Aug 9, 2006 at 23:42 o\clock:Commenting on Jamryns comment, she asks \"have we lost forvever the ability to find a fair and honourable compromise\". I think the present Bush administration has made \"compromise\" and \"negotiation\" into dirty words. As far as being stuck in the past, the main reason that the Americans won\'t talk to Iran is that they are still pissed about the US embassy siege in Tehran 25 years ago and the main reason that the Americans will not talk to Syria is because of Syria\'s involvement in the bomb that killed over 200 US marines in Beirut (again close to 25 years ago).



    Ultimately,terrorism is in the eye and mind of the beholder. I think someone said, after the London bombings of 2004, \"we did not call them terroritsts beacuse they did not fill us with terror\".
  8. davecathy wrote at Aug 10, 2006 at 00:49 o\clock:You raise a whole new concept, that a word should mean what the eye and mind of the beholder believes or wishes.

    I could interpret STOP to mean GO, which would be a bit disastrous at traffic lights.

    Look at the trouble guys get into when they interpret NO to mean YES, and get charged with rape.

    Surely, words have a precise meaning, or they mean nothing, and we are reduced to communicating by gestures, which is exactly what terrorists do, for mass murder of civilians is, at the end of the day, just a gesture.

    Going back 50 years, how many Americans did the Japanese kill, or the Germans? yet America made peace with them shortly afetrwards. More recently, look at the number of Americans killed in Kenya or Somalia, yet the Americans have gone back to both those places on friendly enough terms.
  9. insider2 wrote at Aug 10, 2006 at 01:59 o\clock:I guess what it is, Dave, is I have overstayed my welcome in the United States. I happen to live in a very \"Democrat\" area but the Democrats seem unable to form a decent opposition to the Republicans in Washington (much like the Conservatives don\'t seem to be able to form a credible opposition to Labour in Whitehall).



    I find myself day after day finding things to detest about America, even though I really try to look on the positive side.



    Let\'s keep the debate vigorous, not much chance to do that over here!
  10. davecathy wrote at Aug 10, 2006 at 02:46 o\clock:Oh, I dont think we will run out of things to argue about, heh heh
  11. insider2 wrote at Aug 10, 2006 at 17:47 o\clock:Blogigo seems to be going a bit wobbly, so if we lose contact, use my Yahoo email. Blogigo now calls me "insider2" but the blog itself is still "insider".

Log in to comment:

Attention: many blogigo features are only available to registered users. Register now without any obligations and get your free weblog!