Will you be a freedom fighter or a terrorist ?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Or how the reader chooses how to perceive it
Your mind is your own. Enjoy it




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


your mind might be free but if you say went out and killed your next door neighbour you would be charged for murder as that act would constitute murder as outlined under UK law and branded a “murderer” this is constant with the definition of a “murderer” as most states would define under their law. . Now say you started distributing propaganda the UK law regards as “terrorist material” then you would be charged as a “terrorist” yet if you done the same thing in say India they would not legally say you are a terrorist. Because India and the UK have a different definition of “terrorism”.

Your perception of a personal definition of terrorism could be that “terrorists are guys who like cake” but in court such a definition wouldn’t matter.

Read my link it might explain it to you a bit better.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cody599



I'd term a terrorist in general as someone who kills non-combatants by design to achieve political or other similar outcome.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

So much more eloquent than I thankyou.
However in a civil war situation do the lines become more blurred ?



I see no blurring of the lines because the lines necessarily have to be moral ones and not technical/legal ones.

Any establishment or defending force in a guerrilla war will see the attackers as terrorists and let's face it, that *IS* the whole point. The defining question becomes though, are 'we' terrorizing the actual and specific enemy or the general population to put pressure on the enemy?

Terrorists don't make that distinction in an all out 'ends justify the means' approach. Terrorists also DEMAND and do not seek to earn the support of the local population. Freedom Fighters can be defined as acting the opposite of those two things as much as humanly possible by circumstances.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Back to the OP
The question is which would you, in your mind be ?
By your own definition as opposed to british law



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   


Any establishment or defending force in a guerrilla war
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Never in the history of mankind to my knowledge has an attacking force overcome a guerilla force defending their homeland



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 

That may hold some truth by the fact we can look back and see how things ultimately turned out in each case while looking at years as statistics and not the endless periods they were to live for those at the time.

In that sense... The Japanese pretty well pacified where they occupied in World War II, as did the Germans in at least a few of their more tightly controlled territories. The fact those all turned out well for history sure isn't a point of encouragement if one were heading into the leading part of the experience, eh?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


In my mind I would be a freedom fighter, but then again every terrorist regards himself as a freedom fighter, they all believe that their cause is just.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Only if the innocents are saved.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


I will tell you where the line is as I know it so well.

In War there will always be events that place in danger the lives of the innocent. This must be avoided at all costs including the lives of those fighting. A person who has dedicated themselves to fight for a cause of freedom must do so in a manner that never places a Higher Priority upon killing their target than protecting what and who they are fighting for.

If a Fighter wishes to place themselves in a situation where their life is at stake it is their right. It IS NOT their right to make decisions about other peoples lives unless those people have made a choice that knowingly places them in the cross hairs.

In Afghanistan the Tribal Regions are dominated by Opium Growing Warlords who protect the civilians as well as feed them all as a way to generate good will as well as funding by the U.S. Areas without such Warlords are subjected to Taliban rule when the Taliban cross the Pakistan Boarder in the Spring as they spend Winters in the Tribal Regions of Pakistan during the winter. Such Pakistan located Tribal Leaders are under an ancient code that is practiced in that a guest of these Tribes must be protected if they are designated as a guest.

To become a guest the Taliban offer Money, Supplies and stories of bravery. U.S. Ultra-Covert Special Forces have also been granted Guest Status doing the same thing and have even done so in Tribes that already have Taliban Guests. Since entertainment is scarce in such places one Guest may challenge another Guest to a fight to the Death over Honor and such a contest must be sanctioned by the Tribal Leaders. If this is granted a One on One knife fight will occur in which the U.S. Special Forces Members always come out on top.

The reason I am talking about this is that the LINE of Fighting for a cause should be exclusive to a person never placing their orders or actions or goals over the overall goal...and in Afghanistans case...that goal is to kill Taliban and Terrorists. If Civilians are giving safe haven to these people then efforts to prevent Civilian deaths is called for. Sometimes this is not possible but then again...they have made their choice...and if it was not their choice then a fighter better well KNOW that.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I read the link, and it still seems to me like the difference lies within the minds of the people on the opposing sides. I mean, i could always go with the definition of terrorism that the MSM in the states gives us, which is along the lines of "any person or group that strikes fear and panic into the public." Or somethng like that..... In which case the gov. Itself is a terrorist organization, right along with spiders and Dean Koontz novels.

Ah well, i guess id consider myself a freedom fighter. Until i start scaring people, then i'll be a terrorist. Until i kill an innocent person, then i'll just be a jack***

"I'm just a freedom fighter
No remorse
Raging on in holy war
Soon there'll come a day
When your face to face with me"~ Creed

Oh yes, i quoted Creed



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I haven't read your post yet, and I will return to do so in just a moment...I would just like to address the title of your post. These are one in the same. There is only a difference to those watching and not participating at all...We are all freedom fighters and terrorists...






top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join