It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terrorist is Freedom Fighters

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I´ve been thinking.

And the word terroist is very unspecific in its explanation in what they are.
Most terrorist are just young teenagers and male civilians who are forming groups
in order to recapture their homeland from an occuping force. In this case
the coallition force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All they want to do is to defend their way of living instead of being FORCED into the western type of living.

So, knowing this.
How do you fight against and army with the most high tech weapons the world has to offer?
You fight in the "terrorist way". With homemade bombs, kidnappings, threats e.tc.


This whole war is based upon a lie and innocent people always is the ones sacrificing their lives for something thats not even justified in any way.



Edit to correct spelling in title.

[edit on 15-10-2006 by mrwupy]




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The idea that, "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is a very old argument. I can even see where it could be applied in the current situations of the world.

I do believe that a freedom fighter would stick to targeting military targets. A terrorist kills anyone and everyone that he can, including women and children. If he deliberately murders the innocent he is not a freedom fighter, he is a terrorist.

Thats just my take on it.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trolsa
How do you fight against and army with the most high tech weapons the world has to offer?
You fight in the "terrorist way". With homemade bombs, kidnappings, threats e.tc.


Kidnapping, beheading, and/or blowing up your own civilians is not fighting a war; it's cruel, animalistic, and terrorism.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
most of the people fighting In iraq and just targeting US forces and not cuvilains
would be classed as freedom fighters, those who target or kill cuvilians are terrorists.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Well. Yes. Maybe they are terrorist if they kill innocent people. But I just dont think its justified to hunt for terroist by bombing an entire country. Thats makes more civilian deaths than the terrorist them self.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Doesn't every war, conflict kill innocent people? When the Allies bombed Germny there were innocent people killed. When German bombed London, there were innocents killed. When the US bombed Japan, there were innocents killed. All military action results in innocents being killed, the best anyone can hope for is that there is as little innocent lives lost as possible, but that really is an empty promise when all is said and done.

That is the problem with this war, there is no target. The is no area they hold that we could take to "win". They have no flag. They wear no uniform. There is no way of ever knowing if we have won, it is an endless war. Just the kind that is not even ment to be won.

IMO, the difference between freedom fighter and terrorists are to which extent they hold their beleif's. It seems to me that a terrorist is someone who is doing what they are doing for purely personal reasons. While a freedom fighter is someone who is fighting for their nation, sort of a greater calling. But it is more dependant on where you sit.

The American revolutionaries were terrorists according to Britian, but freedom fighters to the Americans.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
The insurgents (people who fight against the occupying MILLITARY) in Iraq have basically joined forces with people who kill innocents and commit vast acts of babarity (the latter are mostly foreign fighters who couldn't give a # about Iraq, and are just there for there islamofacist ideas) For them it is all worth it, as a means to an end. Kill vast amounts of civilians, whip up resentment against the occupiers, get the Western media on the side of the Insurgents, thus swinging public opinion, thus applying political pressure etc and then maybe leading to a withdrawal.

If the UK government suddenly starting slaugtering my own country men, silenced the political process, got rid off our unwritten constitution etc then I would probably let an opposing force do the work that the people just can't simply do. I think any Iraqi with the countries true interests at heart should at least let some sort of stabillity return, and see how it goes from there. We are making wide assumptions that the Coalition will 'FORCE' western life on them.

Iraq doesn't have to be a bloodbath, some people are making it so. The US forces will NOT pullout if the violence continues. If it dies down, they might just withdraw to a skeleton deplyoment. The insurgents/terrorists (call them what you will) are the ones aggraveting the situation, and its because they don't care about iraqi people, the ideology of opposition has simply turned to the inbuilt hatred of Western people. You just have to watch their propoganda videos to see how sick they really are. For them it is simply part of a big battle against the 'Christian-Judeo forces' that God wills them to wage and win.

I don't see how attacking the WTC was an act of 'fighting for freedom' The USS cole before hand, the hijacking of airliners in the Middle East and Africa etc. How does the killing and maiming of innocent civilians (women and children etc) equate to liberating people?

[edit on 15-10-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 15-10-2006 by Peyres]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Doesn't every war, conflict kill innocent people? When the Allies bombed Germny there were innocent people killed. When German bombed London, there were innocents killed. When the US bombed Japan, there were innocents killed. All military action results in innocents being killed, the best anyone can hope for is that there is as little innocent lives lost as possible, but that really is an empty promise when all is said and done.


Actual bonafide military actions will always cause civilian deaths, the difference is they are killed indirectly, not being targeted as these "freedom fighters" are doing. There is a clear difference.


That is the problem with this war, there is no target.


Yeah there is. The problem is the targets attack from within mobs of innocents, and frequently target the innocents as well.


IMO, the difference between freedom fighter and terrorists are to which extent they hold their beleif's. It seems to me that a terrorist is someone who is doing what they are doing for purely personal reasons. While a freedom fighter is someone who is fighting for their nation, sort of a greater calling. But it is more dependant on where you sit.


That's a fairly good distinction. Now having said that, ask yourself, why is one sect killing another? Is it for personal reasons, or is killing your countrymen good for your nation?


The American revolutionaries were terrorists according to Britian, but freedom fighters to the Americans.


For the most part, the American Revolutionaries didn't make it their mission to target and kill civilians, and (again for the most part) neither did the British soldiers.

If these were "freedom fighters", they would pull their collective head from their ass and realize that killing each other only gives the administration an excuse to stay, while if they stopped, the occupation would end much faster, as the main reason for occupation would cease to exist.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
I don't see how attacking the WTC was an act of 'fighting for freedom' The USS cole before hand, the hijacking of airliners in the Middle East and Africa etc. How does the killing and maiming of innocent civilians (women and children etc) equate to liberating people?

Terror is when violence is aplied to induce more violence for the sake of violence itself.
Freedom fight is when violence is aplied to obtain a goal for the benefit of a broader group.

By that definition WTC and USS Cole is freedom fight. If Al Qaeda did it, but if some government agency did it, it is terror.
As to the last part of your quote - no matter who did - it's clearly terror.

Callousness more or less wipes out the lines between the two.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Freedom fight is when violence is aplied to obtain a goal for the benefit of a broader group.

By that definition WTC and USS Cole is freedom fight. If Al Qaeda did it, but if some government agency did it, it is terror.


What was the benevolent goal to the WTC attacks or the Cole bombing? What freedoms were being infringed during those times that were solved by al-Qaeda carrying out those attacks?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Why do people try to be open minded by making threads like "terrorists are freedom fighters", when they just look absolutely nuts? You should be more specific. All I see from the "freedom fighters" in Iraq now is torture chambers (where real torture takes place, not American torture), dead bodies on the streets of Baghdad, car bombings. They're really doing a bad job at liberating themselves from the evil western imperialists.

Ooooh Ahhhh Scawwy




posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
most of the people fighting In iraq and just targeting US forces and not cuvilains
would be classed as freedom fighters, those who target or kill cuvilians are terrorists.


Freedom from what? Repression? What repression? Occupation, well of course the country is 'occupied' but Coalition forces are there because the infrastructure needs to be re-built and some semblence of order needs to be restored. Whether one agrees with the supposed reasons for going to war should be irrelevant. That belongs in the past and should be put aside for the greater good. Which is to rebuild Iraq and place it in a position in which it can fend for itself. The sooner this is allowed to happen, the sooner the Coalition can go and let the Iraqis govern themselves.

All these car bombs being set off, kidnappings, beatings, killings many performed by the populace against eachother and by external forces. How is this contributing to liberation? Have you seen such methods used against 'repressed' peoples in other independence struggles? It's completely absurd and proposterous. If you're going to willfully target the very group you want to liberate then you are simply devolving into primal mayhem which has nothing to do with liberation.

[edit on 16/10/06 by Flyboy211]

[edit on 16/10/06 by Flyboy211]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join