It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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?
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]
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]
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.
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]