Insurgents, what are they
0
Now before you all start to blow up about the subject and see it with a western only view, think of all the sides before you respond, whether it takes you a day to decide a just answer or not, take your time.
Personally i am curious to everyones beliefs on this subject, all i hear in our media run society is how insurgents did this, insurgents done that, murder innocents etc. frankly i'm a bit tired of it and i want to see others opinions before i make a full decision myself.
Now put it past if you have a loved one or friend in Iraq, and think, do they deserve to fight. Do they deserve to take lives for their freedom, Now think back to the revolutionary war, Americans where the "freedom fighters" because they won, had the British won, would they be terrorists? should we justly call the insurgents terrorists because of their tactics, which is guerrilla warfare, just like the Americans. Or should be deem them terrorists, for inflicting terror upon all they can to get their point across.
Personally, i believe i side more with the insurgents in this matter. It is their country and the Americans have taken their freedom in a way to put their own democracy in with bullets. They are a proud people and won't give up the fight, i believe some sort of agreement should be instated to reduce this civil unrest.
But then there is also the fact that they are aligned with the taliban. Personally i don't blame them, in WWII Finland was abandoned by the allies cause they wanted Russia at all costs, what were the Finnish to do but turn to the Nazi's for help, which the Nazi's surely gave.
Through all this, what should we deem the insurgents...
Freedom Fighters...
or Terrorists
Personally i am curious to everyones beliefs on this subject, all i hear in our media run society is how insurgents did this, insurgents done that, murder innocents etc. frankly i'm a bit tired of it and i want to see others opinions before i make a full decision myself.
Now put it past if you have a loved one or friend in Iraq, and think, do they deserve to fight. Do they deserve to take lives for their freedom, Now think back to the revolutionary war, Americans where the "freedom fighters" because they won, had the British won, would they be terrorists? should we justly call the insurgents terrorists because of their tactics, which is guerrilla warfare, just like the Americans. Or should be deem them terrorists, for inflicting terror upon all they can to get their point across.
Personally, i believe i side more with the insurgents in this matter. It is their country and the Americans have taken their freedom in a way to put their own democracy in with bullets. They are a proud people and won't give up the fight, i believe some sort of agreement should be instated to reduce this civil unrest.
But then there is also the fact that they are aligned with the taliban. Personally i don't blame them, in WWII Finland was abandoned by the allies cause they wanted Russia at all costs, what were the Finnish to do but turn to the Nazi's for help, which the Nazi's surely gave.
Through all this, what should we deem the insurgents...
Freedom Fighters...
or Terrorists
0
Terrorists, without a doubt. Freedom fighters should keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but these guys are deliberately attacking them.
I don't think it's a matter of having a "western" view. The IRA(pre-Belfast Agreement) was a terrorist organization(in my eyes), and they're from a Western country.
Tl;dr - if your modus operandi includes killing civilians, you're a terrorist.
I don't think it's a matter of having a "western" view. The IRA(pre-Belfast Agreement) was a terrorist organization(in my eyes), and they're from a Western country.
Tl;dr - if your modus operandi includes killing civilians, you're a terrorist.
0
From the western understanding you can not split the two, from the perspective of the insurgents they will normally think of themselves as freedom fighters or the equivalent but their enemies will normally call them terrorists; but with the literal definition of the words used, whether some one is called a terrorist or not depends solely on whether they have the backing of the people who they are trying to protect or terrorize. So therefore, I really don't think we are the first people to ask for a question of this type; only the Iraqis can provide a true answer to this question because they are directly involved in the quagmire which has developed.
0
I believe there is a flaw in the poll. It has freedom fighter, terrorist, and undecided. Well those aren't the only answers, they can be both, which would depend on who they're fighting and fighting for.
Whether or not they are terrorists, insurgents, or freedom fighters, depends on what they're fighting for. Surely a freedom fighter would do their utmost not to attack civilians. In Iraq, well, we see more civilian deaths and I assure you, the US military does not condone such actions. We have laws in the military that reflect the Constitution and morals of this country and they apply wherever we may be, even if you're on holiday.
So that tells you the military doesn't commit those actions. It's the ones who are pro-Saddam (yes, they still exist), pro-al qaeda, radical Islamic groups that misinterpret their own teachings, bribing and teaching the young and ignorant to fight for them.
They see us as barbarians, but who is it that kidnaps multinational workers and beheads them? Who detonates a powerful bomb in the market just to kill a a small squad (2-10) soldiers or police officers.
The IRA for example, tied explosives to live prisoners and detonated them when help arrived. So called freedom fighters. Though they did fight a repressive government, The Crown of England has throughout history, been very harsh on the territories it possessed. America, India, Australia, South Africa, China, just to name a few that I can name events in.
massacre of indigenous people in the Americas, Taxation without representation and soldiers taking homes as quarters before the revolution, the Arrest of American sailors after the revolution which spawned another war in 1812 in America alone. In India, the class system and oppression of majority Indian people. Mahatma Ghandi anyone? The Opium wars in China (forcibly selling them lower grade Opium at a higher price, when confronted and told not to sell their products as opium use was on a decline, they were worse than the tobacco companies of today. Slaughter of persecution of Indigenous Aboriginal people of Australia, the last pure blooded Aboriginal died in prison in the late 1800's-early mid 1900 (on an old documentary, I forget the date). Apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela anyone?
I have to stop here I went on a rant just listing examples of tyranny in the crown. I'll touch more on this topic tomorrow. I have to go to work
Whether or not they are terrorists, insurgents, or freedom fighters, depends on what they're fighting for. Surely a freedom fighter would do their utmost not to attack civilians. In Iraq, well, we see more civilian deaths and I assure you, the US military does not condone such actions. We have laws in the military that reflect the Constitution and morals of this country and they apply wherever we may be, even if you're on holiday.
So that tells you the military doesn't commit those actions. It's the ones who are pro-Saddam (yes, they still exist), pro-al qaeda, radical Islamic groups that misinterpret their own teachings, bribing and teaching the young and ignorant to fight for them.
They see us as barbarians, but who is it that kidnaps multinational workers and beheads them? Who detonates a powerful bomb in the market just to kill a a small squad (2-10) soldiers or police officers.
The IRA for example, tied explosives to live prisoners and detonated them when help arrived. So called freedom fighters. Though they did fight a repressive government, The Crown of England has throughout history, been very harsh on the territories it possessed. America, India, Australia, South Africa, China, just to name a few that I can name events in.
massacre of indigenous people in the Americas, Taxation without representation and soldiers taking homes as quarters before the revolution, the Arrest of American sailors after the revolution which spawned another war in 1812 in America alone. In India, the class system and oppression of majority Indian people. Mahatma Ghandi anyone? The Opium wars in China (forcibly selling them lower grade Opium at a higher price, when confronted and told not to sell their products as opium use was on a decline, they were worse than the tobacco companies of today. Slaughter of persecution of Indigenous Aboriginal people of Australia, the last pure blooded Aboriginal died in prison in the late 1800's-early mid 1900 (on an old documentary, I forget the date). Apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela anyone?
I have to stop here I went on a rant just listing examples of tyranny in the crown. I'll touch more on this topic tomorrow. I have to go to work
0
The use of armed force, often demonstrates that individuals are fighting for a non-righteous cause.
(at least in the eyes of your society)
Yes--terrorists can be morally RIGHT, sometimes. But does this change the definition of a terrorist? Afraid not.
The way Minsc feels, if you are murdering to achieve political, economic, religious, or ideological objectives, you are a terrorist. Unless the majority agrees with your actions-hence making it lawful.
(at least in the eyes of your society)
Yes--terrorists can be morally RIGHT, sometimes. But does this change the definition of a terrorist? Afraid not.
The way Minsc feels, if you are murdering to achieve political, economic, religious, or ideological objectives, you are a terrorist. Unless the majority agrees with your actions-hence making it lawful.
0
Terrorist?noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
?adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
[Origin: 1785?95; terror + -ist; cf. F terroriste]
Bam see that? The word Terrorist isn't new it's at least 200 years old. SO By any means a freedom fighter does NOT terrorize IE, murder innocence, or cause panic to civilians.
Basically, does a Terrorist fight for the general well being and I mean the real well being, not their beliefs or other beliefs, but the real thing that should be happening? No.
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
?adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
[Origin: 1785?95; terror + -ist; cf. F terroriste]
Bam see that? The word Terrorist isn't new it's at least 200 years old. SO By any means a freedom fighter does NOT terrorize IE, murder innocence, or cause panic to civilians.
Basically, does a Terrorist fight for the general well being and I mean the real well being, not their beliefs or other beliefs, but the real thing that should be happening? No.
0
"Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions."
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorists
"Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment."
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgents
Would say sabotage and harassment in itself is a form of terrorism? We could play word games, all day, Evilryo... But Minsc respects your intelligence, and sees no fault in your logic. Only that we reside on the opposite sides of the coin.
0
I'm not taking any sides in the debate, but people, don't try to argue with definitions. A definition is only a description of a words general use, there is no such thing as a 'correct' or 'ture' definition. By pulling up a definition, all you're doing is saying "hey, this is how some person(s) use this word". Pulling out other people's definitions is kinda pointless when the topic is essentially "do you define said people as...".
0
this is quite tricky i mean to one group of people smeone maybe a freedm fighter to the other they are labelled terrorists. i mean its hard to decde if ppl are truly fighting for a cause then i tink they should try not to use metods which will harm ppl they should use methods that will rally the world to their plight and help them but this rarely happens i supose fter some time the ppl being opressed get tired and have to rise against injustices.
0
I will not say freedom fighters, nor will I say terrorist. Why? Because we only have the view from the western side. I mean if you lived as they are living, grew up as they did, learned as they have learned...do you think you would do as they do? So to us they may be terrorist but to them they are fighting for freedom the only way they know how. I believe America should stop wasting the lives of innocents and take the troupes out of there and leave them to do as they wish. But thats just me and my anti-govermental mind >>. (I really want to start bashing on the government at the moment, so I'm ending this post here)
0
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Terrorist organizations. They want americans dead. Be it a soldier or a civilian. If they were freedom fighters they would have attempted to fight against their own government. Which they have not. Their main goal is to disrupt and keep their gov. in their control. That is my view.
0
Immortal_Worth wrote...
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Terrorist organizations. They want americans dead. Be it a soldier or a civilian. If they were freedom fighters they would have attempted to fight against their own government. Which they have not. Their main goal is to disrupt and keep their gov. in their control. That is my view.Oddly enough they do fight their government look at Afghanistan they're still fighting for control.
Anyway "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighters" are two sides of the same coin.
Take for example the Vietcong, they conducted terrorist activities in Saigon during the Vietnam War.
To the South Vietnam government and American forces they were seen as terrorists.
But to the people that supported them they were freedom fighters.
Not to mention the people that fought for the independence of the United States were to the British seen as terrorist.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Obligatory chart:
What you call them is just a matter of propaganda (freedom fighter/insurgent). What they are though is a matter of what their targets are and what is the international support of their cause.
Starting moralistic arguments will only cloud the issue ever more. We've been at war in one form or another, on some spot of the planet for the whole of human history. Debating our reasons for doing so won't change the fact that we still do. The choices are simple: Fight or Flight... if you're lucky and you're the attacker. Otherwise it's Fight (and die like animals) or Surrender (...and die like animals).
What you call them is just a matter of propaganda (freedom fighter/insurgent). What they are though is a matter of what their targets are and what is the international support of their cause.
Starting moralistic arguments will only cloud the issue ever more. We've been at war in one form or another, on some spot of the planet for the whole of human history. Debating our reasons for doing so won't change the fact that we still do. The choices are simple: Fight or Flight... if you're lucky and you're the attacker. Otherwise it's Fight (and die like animals) or Surrender (...and die like animals).
0
spectre257 wrote...
Immortal_Worth wrote...
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Terrorist organizations. They want americans dead. Be it a soldier or a civilian. If they were freedom fighters they would have attempted to fight against their own government. Which they have not. Their main goal is to disrupt and keep their gov. in their control. That is my view.Oddly enough they do fight their government look at Afghanistan they're still fighting for control.
Anyway "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighters" are two sides of the same coin.
Take for example the Vietcong, they conducted terrorist activities in Saigon during the Vietnam War.
To the South Vietnam government and American forces they were seen as terrorists.
But to the people that supported them they were freedom fighters.
Not to mention the people that fought for the independence of the United States were to the British seen as terrorist.
I apologize. I had forgotten about that. Most Al Qeada "terrorists" fight against democracy and the government that is being created in Afghanistan. The Taliban are an off branch of the Al Qaeda created to terrorize. I can see how some people would see them as Freedom Fighters. We shouldn't just look at other countries and judge but look all over. It will always be controversial no matter how you look at it.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Immortal_Worth wrote...
spectre257 wrote...
Immortal_Worth wrote...
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Terrorist organizations. They want americans dead. Be it a soldier or a civilian. If they were freedom fighters they would have attempted to fight against their own government. Which they have not. Their main goal is to disrupt and keep their gov. in their control. That is my view.Oddly enough they do fight their government look at Afghanistan they're still fighting for control.
Anyway "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighters" are two sides of the same coin.
Take for example the Vietcong, they conducted terrorist activities in Saigon during the Vietnam War.
To the South Vietnam government and American forces they were seen as terrorists.
But to the people that supported them they were freedom fighters.
Not to mention the people that fought for the independence of the United States were to the British seen as terrorist.
I apologize. I had forgotten about that. Most Al Qeada "terrorists" fight against democracy and the government that is being created in Afghanistan. The Taliban are an off branch of the Al Qaeda created to terrorize. I can see how some people would see them as Freedom Fighters. We shouldn't just look at other countries and judge but look all over. It will always be controversial no matter how you look at it.
Are you really this dense, are you so inured in propaganda that you couldn't even check on Wikipedia the history of Afghanistan?
The Taliban are not a terrorist organization and they've existed long before Al Qaeda.
In fact they've existed even before they were called Taliban. They're the natural power of Afghanistan - tribes, families, clans. Fragmented, often warring with each other. A dozen fiefdoms of little warlords and big bastards. Taliban itself is a tribal confederacy of Ghilzai and their allied tribes. If you try to portray the Taliban like another movement, where anyone can join up, or one that preaches a specific ideology first and foremost, you're entirely missing the point.
Taliban is just the name of that the coalition of conservative tribes took for their alliance, but they're still just a bunch of tribes who're bound together first and foremost by ties of blood and hundreds of years of warfare where traditional alliances have been formed.
0
I'm not going to be so low as to insult you back. I'd appreciate an argumentative response without being called dense. Unless you can do that I'm not going to argue with you.
0
Ima gonna have to go with terrorists, has the us done anything to warrant that attacking of civilians? the brutal executions of its men at arms? they aren't freedom fighters when they indiscriminately attack anyone.
0
Terrorists. Seriously it's like Japan all over again. You have high ranking individual's brainwashing and twisting religious text to the masses just so that you can see YOUR ideal's (not God's) bear fruit. You can argue me on this one, but I though religion was more about spreading love and peace to your neighbor, not blowing them up.
0
EvilRyo wrote...
the IRA for example, tied explosives to live prisoners and detonated them when help arrived. So called freedom fighters. Though they did fight a repressive government, The Crown of England has throughout history, been very harsh on the territories it possessed. America, India, Australia, South Africa, China, just to name a few that I can name events in. massacre of indigenous people in the Americas, Taxation without representation and soldiers taking homes as quarters before the revolution, the Arrest of American sailors after the revolution which spawned another war in 1812 in America alone. In India, the class system and oppression of majority Indian people. Mahatma Ghandi anyone? The Opium wars in China (forcibly selling them lower grade Opium at a higher price, when confronted and told not to sell their products as opium use was on a decline, they were worse than the tobacco companies of today. Slaughter of persecution of Indigenous Aboriginal people of Australia, the last pure blooded Aboriginal died in prison in the late 1800's-early mid 1900 (on an old documentary, I forget the date). Apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela anyone?
I have to stop here I went on a rant just listing examples of tyranny in the crown. I'll touch more on this topic tomorrow. I have to go to work
Great, Thats what I really love to see more anti Royalist/English hate just because they had a worldwide Empire that actually worked!
Maybe a Japanese Empire would've been better, Less oppressive maybe? Dont make me laugh!
No matter whos in charge - The Americans, The Russians, The Chinese, The French, The Germans theres always gonna be a bunch of jealous people out their tut tutting their many achievements and all the good things they introduced throughout history because they did some very nasty things.
Having an Empire isnt an easy thing to deal with sometimes you have to do things your not necessarily proud of and sometimes people cause unnecessary trouble or have to be fucked over generally to oil the wheels so to speak. (Its just the way things are)
If you "Row Row Fight the Power" expect a canoe paddle up your ass!
Im sure the Chinese are doing some terrible human rights abuses as we speak (Well there are fuck tons of them so its practically guaranteed that someones getting the shaft and thats not including the other people around the World that their 'taking care of') Im sure Americas doing their shady business as usual and im also pretty certain that the Russians are up to some unsavoury things as well. (Everyones scheming and plotting something regardless of race or nationality)
You think that if the Africans and Europeans roles were reversed throughout history that they'd do differently, You think they'd give us all a big hug and build schools for us free of charge and take really good care of us? HELL NO they'd screw us over just as we did to them. (Except we actually did build some schools, Installed infrastructure, Created stable police forces/armys and a vast number of other improvements)
Even in America ETC ETC the rich will always fuck over the social risers, They dont ask for much except for you to give up the money, To be happy with your lot and to remain weak and poor. If you try to improve your status they WILL try to crush you! (Thats the way its always been and its the same throughout the entire World)
Anyway I see 'insurgents' purely as Terrorists just out to hurt the common man, Why dont they just man up and stop thinking small scale and hit the people who actually matter? Stop blowing up Market stalls and start assassinating some well to do capitalists/bankers/political figures? I hate the fact that they just kill a bunch of grunts/innocent civilians... How does that help their cause?
0
If you ask me, they are simply two different labels for the same product. They both use the same means for the same end. Of course, they will say that they're freedom fighters, but the people they are fighting will say terrorists.
In every government, there will always be a small few who claim that the country isn't free. If you ask me, if you have a problem with what the government is doing, don't put innocent (used very tentatively, seeing as the government might be innocent too) people at risk. A true man fights with his words; these are all boys with chips on their shoulder and guns in their hands.
EDIT: To the one who went on about the English Crown (forgot to quote him, so I'm guessing his name is EvilRyu?), there is a slight difference in what that was, and what is being discussed. Well, not even slight, vast. Me being English, and Royalist at that, am of course slightly peeved at this dig.
I'm proud of what my ancestors achieved, and will be forever proud at what we still achieve and will achieve. May I say this famous quote "The Sun never sets on the British Empire"? It is very fitting, and differently to what it originally meant; we may not have the landmass any more, but out efforts will forever be recognised in the countries that used to be ours. Sure we dominated them, but we also brought them hygiene, culture, roadworks and much more.
Please keep bad comments about the British Empire to a minimum; it did a LOT more good than the bad everyone thinks happened.
In every government, there will always be a small few who claim that the country isn't free. If you ask me, if you have a problem with what the government is doing, don't put innocent (used very tentatively, seeing as the government might be innocent too) people at risk. A true man fights with his words; these are all boys with chips on their shoulder and guns in their hands.
EDIT: To the one who went on about the English Crown (forgot to quote him, so I'm guessing his name is EvilRyu?), there is a slight difference in what that was, and what is being discussed. Well, not even slight, vast. Me being English, and Royalist at that, am of course slightly peeved at this dig.
I'm proud of what my ancestors achieved, and will be forever proud at what we still achieve and will achieve. May I say this famous quote "The Sun never sets on the British Empire"? It is very fitting, and differently to what it originally meant; we may not have the landmass any more, but out efforts will forever be recognised in the countries that used to be ours. Sure we dominated them, but we also brought them hygiene, culture, roadworks and much more.
Please keep bad comments about the British Empire to a minimum; it did a LOT more good than the bad everyone thinks happened.