Tories would list tigers as terrorists

[the caracal kid]

Re: RE: Tories would list tigers as terrorists

jersay,

as to convenience: groups become "terrorists" rather than "rebels" or "freedom fighters" or "liberators" entirely on the perspective of the labeler. If a country benefits from the group, they get a "good" label, if not, they get a "bad" label. People are all to willing to accept attrocities when they benefit from them (especially when they don't have to witness them).

war is the terror of the rich: rich nations can declare "war" and create all the terror that goes with warring under that flag. the poor people/nations do not have armies to declare war, so they must fight with what little they have in whatever way they can. How can a poor group fight a strong armed nation? "terror attacks". But let us not kid each other that either side is any more or less noble than the other.

This is absolute baloney.

No western army I know of stops buses, pulls off people of questionable ethnicity, and machine guns them in the street. That is a favourite tactic of the LTTE.

Our allies to the south are a free and democratic nation, despite their faults.

This idiocy of relativism will be the end of us. Do you like the priviledges of western civilization? If so, you should realize that some chauvinism is necessary in the defense of a relatively free and open society.

To equate the actions of the US in Iraq, or the Israelis in the Middle East, with the wholesale murder of civilians perpetrated by the LTTE is disingenuous, to say the least. They are not the same thing.

oh please.

war and terrorism are the same thing, they only differ in their scale and tactics.

i love how you refer to relativism and then refer to a "relatively free and open society". Yes, it is relatively free, but it is not a free and open society, so don't blow smoke around the fact that you are merley looking to rationalize what some countries do to others and their citizens over the same acts carried out by others.

 

[Jersay]

I have to agree with nitzomoe and caracel kid.

If it benefits a nation, they are freedom fighters and good guys. if they are not, well you know what they are called.

Now, after being occupied for over 60+ years, nearly 100 years, if you consider the British and the Eqyptians and Jordanians, you can see the Palestinians are getting tired.

And in Israel they are not citizens, they are considered less and are treated less than citizens in this so called democracy.

The Iranian-Canadian journalist photos shows what it is truly like in israel, the situation at the hands of Israeli people that Western people don't want to see.

Israel and palestine were suppose to be two seperate states. The israeli's got greedy and took it all, during the wars and more. Now, it is time for them to pay the pipper.

 

[I think not]

If it benefits a nation, they are freedom fighters and good guys. if they are not, well you know what they are called.

I see, so the Palestinians were the good guys when they tried to take over all of Jordan to create a country for themselves. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Jersay]

If it was a benefit to a main regional power or world power yes.

Then the world or regional power would call them freedom fighters.

Now just look at it in another way,

back in World War II, partisan groups would blow up things and commit acts of terorism when necessary to derail the Nazis and their allies. Good or bad, civilians got killed.

Now, take the case in Iraq, some of the insurgents are only fighting because they want America out of their country. They are classified as terrorists while the World War II resisters are classified as heros.

Depends on if it benefits the superpower, or regional or world power at play in the specific region.

Because if the World War Two resisters and partisans were against the allies they wouldn't be classified as heros now.

 

[I think not]

If it was a benefit to a main regional power or world power yes.

Then the world or regional power would call them freedom fighters.

Now just look at it in another way,

back in World War II, partisan groups would blow up things and commit acts of terorism when necessary to derail the Nazis and their allies. Good or bad, civilians got killed.

Now, take the case in Iraq, some of the insurgents are only fighting because they want America out of their country. They are classified as terrorists while the World War II resisters are classified as heros.

Depends on if it benefits the superpower, or regional or world power at play in the specific region.

Because if the World War Two resisters and partisans were against the allies they wouldn't be classified as heros now.

So let me understand your logic Jersay. The PLO forced themselves into Jordan, tried to overthrow the Jordanian government and establish themselves next to Israel, and these people are good guys? I think you need to rethink your thoughts on this one.

The insurgents are fighting to throw the US out, yes, I agree. Now explain to me how killing bus loads of people, bombing hospitals and blowing up markets would be considered a "freedom fighter" when you kill your own people to achieve your goal?

There was a terrorist organization in Greece by the name of 17th November. These people would target politicians and foreign diplomats for whatever screwy reason they had. Fine, they have a goal, good for them. Once they blew up a bus and killed several civilians, every Greek citizen was on the prowl to hunt them down. They lost the indifference or support of the people. How do you THINK the Iraqi's feel, that they are "freedom fighters" when they are killing their OWN people? That's another argument you need to rethink.

 

[the caracal kid]

ITN,

you are evaluating the motives from only your own perspective.

strip away the assignment of value and notice that terrorists are fighting their war with what means they have, while those with more capabilities engage in war, both for their own objectives. Disagree with various objectives perhaps, but don't be so blinded by the reality that those "good guys" are engaged in the same activities as those "bad guys".

War is War, no matter what the name or propaganda.

Do not look to so easily justify one war while condeming another on supposed higher grounds. For the grounds on either side are of equal level.

 

[Jersay]

So let me understand your logic Jersay. The PLO forced themselves into Jordan, tried to overthrow the Jordanian government and establish themselves next to Israel, and these people are good guys? I think you need to rethink your thoughts on this one.

I am not talking about the people of the exact country. I am talking about the world political stage. The use of terrorism and freedom fighters and others names are used only when it is befiting a nation. That is the only difference on a political level between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. If you are a major country and you have a insurgency, lets take Russia and Chechnya, you will call them terrorists. And agreed that an element has gotten beyond the cause of freedom and are actual terrorists in the sense of the word. However, to some Islamic nations and to some people in Chechnya, these fighters are freedom fighters.

Do you understand where I am getting at. The use of terrorist and freedom fighter and other names is just a political term use willy-nilly in most cases by world powers, and regional powers.

The insurgents are fighting to throw the US out, yes, I agree. Now explain to me how killing bus loads of people, bombing hospitals and blowing up markets would be considered a "freedom fighter" when you kill your own people to achieve your goal?

Now, in some cases, so called 'freedom fighters' have used terrorism or bombings to get their means as well. Nelson Mandela's party, not himself, in the end of aparthaid used terrorism and several people were killed. However, they are mostly considered heros or freedom fighters. So, terrorists have killed civilians through the use of bombs and other methods, and freedom fighters have also done the same.

There was a terrorist organization in Greece by the name of 17th November. These people would target politicians and foreign diplomats for whatever screwy reason they had. Fine, they have a goal, good for them. Once they blew up a bus and killed several civilians, every Greek citizen was on the prowl to hunt them down. They lost the indifference or support of the people. How do you THINK the Iraqi's feel, that they are "freedom fighters" when they are killing their OWN people? That's another argument you need to rethink.

Now to end, Freedom fighter and terrorist in the most sense and other words to describe these groups of people is to used and diluted now.

However, there are terrorists who are just plain terrorists. And there are freedom fighters who are just plan freedom fighters. But on a stage, you could use the word terrorist and freedom fighter interchangably on a world stage.

And to get back to your point about Jordan, now to most people in Jordan the fighters were probably seen as terrorists. But what about in the total global world, I am sure at least one or two countries called these fighters good guys.

 

[Jersay]

ITN,

you are evaluating the motives from only your own perspective.

strip away the assignment of value and notice that terrorists are fighting their war with what means they have, while those with more capabilities engage in war, both for their own objectives. Disagree with various objectives perhaps, but don't be so blinded by the reality that those "good guys" are engaged in the same activities as those "bad guys".

War is War, no matter what the name or propaganda.

Do not look to so easily justify one war while condeming another on supposed higher grounds. For the grounds on either side are of equal level.

Exactly, thank you Caracel Kid.

In my culture or religion or whatever you call it, Asatru, the notion of war is;

"There is two sides, they are both equal in their zeal against each other. However, neither side is evil and neither side is good. They both have their goals and values that they present to their warriors in this conflict. And let the side you choose be glorious. If not sleep well."

It shows no good and evil. So you wouldn't call a terrorist a terroristm or a freedom fighter a freedom fighter. You would call it as two sides with their own set values opposing each other.

 

[I think not]

Caracal,

That's not fair, I am looking at this from the Iraqi perspective having personal experience with the incidents in Greece that I mentioned. I have condemned the war in Iraq in case you haven't noticed and I condemn Iraqi's killing Iraqi's to create instability in their country and have public pressure throw out the US. It is having the opposite effect and they know this, and it makes me even sicker to my stomach thinking about it when they vblow up children.

You don't get it, and I am not disrepecting your opinion, you simply have no frame of reference from personal experience to go by. They create animosity towards themselves by targetting their own people and they will lose.

These people are not "freedom fighters", they are more likely disgruntled Hussein loyalists that have played the "evil empire" card on some stupid kids that think they will get 72 fucks in heaven. You can try and justify it all you wish, I have yet to here an argument as to why blowing up people makes any sense.

 

[Jersay]

Caracal,

That's not fair, I am looking at this from the Iraqi perspective having personal experience with the incidents in Greece that I mentioned. I have condemned the war in Iraq in case you haven't noticed and I condemn Iraqi's killing Iraqi's to create instability in their country and have public pressure throw out the US. It is having the opposite effect and they know this, and it makes me even sicker to my stomach thinking about it when they vblow up children.

You don't get it, and I am not disrepecting your opinion, you simply have no frame of reference from personal experience to go by. They create animosity towards themselves by targetting their own people and they will lose.

These people are not "freedom fighters", they are more likely disgruntled Hussein loyalists that have played the "evil empire" card on some stupid kids that think they will get 72 *censored* in heaven. You can try and justify it all you wish, I have yet to here an argument as to why blowing up people makes any sense.

I am not trying to argue, but wouldn't you also be offended by the resisters of the Nazis blowing up people.

It is like you said the view point you take. And actually, you might think you are taking the viewpoint of the Iraqi people, but are you actually. You will still have your bias.

War is war, as Caracel says, things happen in war that people might not like.

 

[I think not]

I am not trying to argue, but wouldn't you also be offended by the resisters of the Nazis blowing up people.

It is like you said the view point you take. And actually, you might think you are taking the viewpoint of the Iraqi people, but are you actually. You will still have your bias.

War is war, as Caracel says, things happen in war that people might not like.

Would you consider the FLQ crisis in Canada a war?

 

[Jersay]

Would you consider the FLQ crisis in Canada a war?

I would debate this for a second. Yes! There was a group of individuals, some would call them terrorists, the sovereigntists in Quebec, maytrs and heros, but the army was called in and 8 deaths were a result of this 7 year crisis or war.

There were 200+ attacks, why wouldn't it be a war?

 

[I think not]

Then I presume they were tried in a military courtroom, yes?

 

[Jersay]

Then I presume they were tried in a military courtroom, yes?

Nope. But you asked me if I thought the FLQ crisis was a war.

I do. And they were tried for treason.

 

[I think not]

Then I presume they were tried in a military courtroom, yes?

Nope. But you asked me if I thought the FLQ crisis was a war.

I do. And they were tried for treason.

Good, I hope they received a bullet through their head, but I somehow doubt it.

The point I am trying to make, is that the definition of terrorism is ambiguous at best. It isn't easyto define it, hence everybody takes the shallow road and calls it a war.

Wars are supposed to be, engaged combat, when the opposing enemies can fight back. Children in diapers waiting in line to get into a hospital to be treated, are not enemies that can fight back.

These people that intentionally kill other people that have no capability of protecting themselves or fighting back, is nothing short of MURDER. Terrorists is too glamorous of a definition if you ask me.

 

[Jersay]

Good, I hope they received a bullet through their head, but I somehow doubt it.

The point I am trying to make, is that the definition of terrorism is ambiguous at best. It isn't easyto define it, hence everybody takes the shallow road and calls it a war.

Wars are supposed to be, engaged combat, when the opposing enemies can fight back. Children in diapers waiting in line to get into a hospital to be treated, are not enemies that can fight back.

These people that intentionally kill other people that have no capability of protecting themselves or fighting back, is nothing short of MURDER. Terrorists is too glamorous of a definition if you ask me.

Now i would agree. there is a true element, that would be a terrorist organization. Truly just for terror. As well as freedom fighters who fight for freedom.

But it doesn't mean that all people labeled a terrorist is a terrorist. It depends on the political implications. It sounds more nasty if someone is labeled a terrorist when he is fighting for his or her freedom.

 

[I think not]

And thats what the "insurgents" are, terrorizing the population. They intentionally target innocent civilians, American military personnel do not take the bus to the battlefield. It's beyond me why they even call them insurgents, they should be calling them murderers.

 

[winniethepooh]

And rightly so !!!

 

[the caracal kid]

"Wars are supposed to be, engaged combat, when the opposing enemies can fight back."

but war is a messy business. we can't make it nice and clean the way some in the world would like to have it.

what is a group fighting for their position supposed to do when they have limited resources and are "outgunned"? They will take the tactics that will have the greatest effect with what they have.

There is no honour in war, except that bestowed by one side upon its own.

 

[Jersay]

And thats what the "insurgents" are, terrorizing the population. They intentionally target innocent civilians, American military personnel do not take the bus to the battlefield. It's beyond me why they even call them insurgents, they should be calling them murderers.

"Wars are supposed to be, engaged combat, when the opposing enemies can fight back."

but war is a messy business. we can't make it nice and clean the way some in the world would like to have it.

what is a group fighting for their position supposed to do when they have limited resources and are "outgunned"? They will take the tactics that will have the greatest effect with what they have.

There is no honour in war, except that bestowed by one side upon its own.

Caracel Kid makes a good point. War is messy and when you are outgunned then you have to take on other measures. It happened in the American Revolution, it has happened througout history.

Now some insurgents are just plain terrorists. However, most just want to get rid of American forces. Therefore they should be considered an opposition force, as well as the Americans.