language debate

are freedom fighter and terrorist the same thing?

 

No. Freedom fighters fight for your thing, terrorist fight against you.

 

lol yeah but isn't that just perspective?
They are the same thing if they use the same methods to an end.
(morality doesn't come into dictionary definitions I guess ;P )

 

All terrorists are freedom fighters, but not all freedom fighters are terrorists... Dang, I think that actually works in this case.

to put it crudely:
Freedom Fighters are dudes with a cause.

Terrorists blow up people.

Add in Optimus' post and you're there.

 

Terrorists have a cause as well and freedom fighters tend to blow up lots of stuff including people.

I had a professor who said that "'terrorists' are what the what the Big Army calls the Little Army". He didn't believe that statement necessarily but at the time it was accurate during the context of when it arose.

You can't escape context.

GE

 

I love how people make exceptions for this classification.

Freedom Fighter=Terrorism

IRA bombed the shit out of people for a "cause."

American Revolutionaries subverted an massive empire for a "cause."

It is perspective based only, so of course I'm going to get shit for putting terrorism and the founding fathers in one post.

 

As one of my proffesors statet: Winners are good, loosers are bad. Winners fight for good reason, loosers for evil one. Winners are freedom fighters, soliders of peace; loosers are terrorists, servitors of chaos...

BTW who was that who say "Winners writes history"? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

 

Every history teacher I've ever had.

 

I mean who say it as the first time /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

 

too bad. Sad to see such a false statement trotted out as a truism. Worse to see it repeated.

GE

 

Care to disprove the statement instead of just saying that it is false? The best way to stop a false statement from being repeated is to present a counter...that or shooting everyone that say it in the head.

 

The proof is pretty much everywhere you turn. If need be--when I get in from work--I'll detail some examples.

The best way to stop a false statement from being repeated is for people to be active in the way they digest information - be critical of it. leading everyone to an answer creates lazy minded people and crushing opposition to ideas just creates more problems.

GE

 

Throwing an answer out without explaining it is far lazier. It doesn't change the way anyone thinks. It doesn't promote changing how they think either. Now all someone has to do is say "Oh that guy said it is wrong. I'm going to walk around saying it is wrong."

Try asking for proof as I did. It is a direct challege that calls on thinking the point out. Engaging someone in a critical discussion of the topic offers them the chance to become more active and introduces new ideas to analyze.

It is entirely plausible that the statement was critcally analyzed and found to be true. Instead you assumed that was not the case and come off as dismising his view with no justification. Your thinking is counter to your own actions.

 

If someone spouts out a soundbite as a complete truth and everyone believes it for no good reason that is bad. If someone says that truth is actually a falsehood and everyone just switches their viewpoint for no good reason then nothing has changed so I agree with you. people who are stupid and lazy will continue to be so--the only thing that changes is what information they currently parrot without understanding it.

I think asking for proof is a valid response but I'd rather people get dirty and dig for it themselves. I do think we're rather conditioned to be note takers which is too bad.

I think that when you consider what the word History means the phrase "history is written by the victor" falls apart as a truth and becomes, simply, something to say. I think that what we sometimes think of as history is really just a popular account of an event. That is to say, one history of many.

My issue with the statement is that it is too general. Dissident histories exist. They existed prior to blogging, prior to the internet, prior to Gutenberg. They exist, are expressed, memorized and carried forward. History is varied, history is extrapolated from artifacts, history is personal, changing, and if it is written by anyone it is written by the people regardless of if someone sees them as a winner or losers.

there's more I could write but my work day has been very long and I was kind of hoping to call it an early night.

GE

 

For me, I would say a terrorist only aims to scare the shit out of people whereas a freedom fighter engages military targets to win an objective.

 

Look at it like this:
USA, UK and Russia won WW2 - and we all know Nacist where bastards who wish to rule the world with their evil plans including dead Judas, purely german kind, theory of german natural physial and psychical dominancy... How you think we will watch this of Nacist will be the winners? Do you really think we won't believe somehow that Judas are bad?

Or another example, more personal for many persons here - cold war. Many of our perets here at "eatern europe" believe for a long time that soviets are good, capitalism is bad, that they live in better world that our wetern neighbor (in terms of both material and social terms) - which was not true. Soviets wrote not only history back there, they wrote "present" too!

If you study history, one of your main sources (if not the main one) are the writings from that time you are concentrated on. And who wrote most of that texts? It is natural for winners to destroy "bad" texts - and with them one (personal from your wiev) part of history; one point of view on th historical events. Yes, after long, long time you can "rewrite" history, change the way of seeing it into more detached one. But thi need some time. Even historicals say that you can start writing "real" history after death of all persons who personally know any persons who live in that "history".

 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me, I would say a terrorist only aims to scare the shit out of people whereas a freedom fighter engages military targets to win an objective.</div></div>
what if the military tactics dictated a civilian scare campaign?

ends justifying the means? some people will say yes,
again depending on individiual perspective.
A person on the other side may call a freedom fighter a terrorist and vice versa.

 

Oh, yes. Then USA are terrorist, because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

No, American supports and perpetrates terrorism b/c of places like the school of the americas.