“One Man’s Terrorist Is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter”

[John Scott]

http://www.americanpoliticalblog.com...eedom-fighter/

[robert s.]

reading the title, i was thinking this will be an interesting discussion.....

reading the blog - i was quite disappointed, because imo it was not really about freedom-fighters and terrorists. but whatever.......

like so many things in life or politics it is always depending on the "point of view". in my home country we have a famous historical figure - Andreas Hofer - who is a big hero nowadays, but some hundred years ago, he was put to death by the french for being a terrorist.

look in Israel - after 1920 the Haganah and later the Irgun, were clearly marked as terrorist organisations by the Brits. but the israelis called them freedom-fighters. and today, all are heroes and some of the former terrorists even made it into the government.

sophie scholl - hanged by the Nazis as a terrorist - is today a shining example worldwide for civil-courage and fighting for freedom.

this list could go on and on.

freedom-fighter or terrorist is defined by ones point of view and at later times pure and simple, by the winning side. nelson mandela became a hero and a freedom-fighter, because the apartheid-system lost. otherwise he would still be a terrorist in a cell!

[John Scott]

Robert, Robert, Robert.

It's people like you that make me lose faith in democracy. Will democracy work when all that's left is kids like you, with impaired intellectual faculties, and your off-spring?

Terrorists are not heroes. They never have been heroes and never will be heroes.

Terrorists target civilians and do not attempt to persuade others to follow, do not attempt to affect change through with the will of the people; they attempt to affect change through terror, by targeting non-combatants.

sophie scholl - hanged by the Nazis as a terrorist

I really ought to revoke your posting permissions. Sophie Scholl never killed anybody. Sophie Scholl was never accused of being a terrorist. She was condemned for treason, in the form of distributing pamphlets.

[robert s.]

john, i get the impression our main problem is my english. I never EVER wanted to give the impression in my post that terrorists are heroes. if i did that - i apologize!

what i wanted to say - with examples, but without judging- that in history there were people or groups CALLED terrorists(or traitors-or criminals) and now they are CALLED heroes. wallace in scotland - our hofer in austria - irgun and haganah in israel....and there is numerous examples in history!

[BingoBalls]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Terrorists are not heroes. They never have been heroes and never will be heroes.

That all depends on your definition of a terrorist. As the title says “One Man’s Terrorist Is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter” and it's a saying that has been used widely in the North of Ireland.

Britain labelled rebel groups in the North of Ireland as terrorists but yet these groups were seen as freedom fighters, heros, by their own people. Britain was the one seen as the terrorists by these people as they Britain was the invaders but they were also responsible for deaths of civilians.

Now if I made an open statement that Britain and her forces were terrorists I would be laughed at. Why so?

[John Scott]

Britain labelled rebel groups in the North of Ireland as terrorists but yet these groups were seen as freedom fighters, heros, by their own people.

IRA? Known world wide as a terrorist group. They targeted civilians. Another thing that sets the terrorists apart from freedom fighters is their lack of good judgment. When they go around targeting civilians, they cannot expect to be given much respect/credibility.

[BingoBalls]

Originally Posted by John Scott

IRA? Known world wide as a terrorist group.

By whom? Officially listed by 5 different countries as a terrorist organisation and that does not include the U.S. who funded them for many years.

Originally Posted by John Scott

They targeted civilians.

Nope they didn't. They officially, as their view, attacked legitimate targets but there is no denial they have been responsible for deaths of civilians which some call collateral damage.

Just for the record. I'm a non supporter but interested in the discussions of terrorist organisations.

[John Scott]

Bombs targeting three year old children are considered terrorist pretty much world wide.

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/...story60008.asp

[John Scott]

officially, as their view, attacked legitimate targets

Pubs, restaurants, non-military targets. They clearly and indisputably targeted civilians.

[BingoBalls]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Bombs targeting three year old children are considered terrorist pretty much world wide.

So surely you can say that the U.S. U.K. etc are a terrorist organisation? For they too have been responsible for many deaths of children and civilians a like. More so than the likes of the IRA.

What rules them to be so different?

Don't get me wrong, those deaths were horrifying but not that horrifying for the U.S. to deem them a terrorist organisation.

It's ok that the British Army shot dead 13 unarmed civilians in Derry? Or how they used death squads to murder Catholics that included Pat Finucane & Rosemary Nelson who were lawyers among many other innocent people? What makes the British Army so different than the IRA?

Originally Posted by John Scott

Pubs, restaurants, non-military targets. They clearly and indisputably targeted civilians.

That goes back to my point about the U.S, the U.K. and any other "army" that was responsible for civilian deaths. What makes them so special that when they bomb/shoot civilian targets they do not be classed as terrorists?

[John Scott]

So surely you can say that the U.S. U.K. etc are a terrorist organisation? For they too have been responsible for many deaths of children and civilians a like. More so than the likes of the IRA.

The difference is the target. The IRA targets civilians and kills civilians. The US at least pretends to target military targets, even though they do end up killing civilians.

[BingoBalls]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The IRA targets civilians and kills civilians.

So did the British and for the most part nobody has ever been brought to justice.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by BingoBalls

So did the British and for the most part nobody has ever been brought to justice.

But they are investigating, yes? Does the British law allow its government to kill civilians? I'm fairly certain the UK is party to treaties that recognize human rights. So their people may kill civilians, but it is illegal, eh?

[BingoBalls]

Originally Posted by John Scott

But they are investigating, yes?

The most we seen was inquiries into events and that has only been happening within the last 10 years. Nobody will be brought to justice for the crimes.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Does the British law allow its government to kill civilians?

The Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland gave them power to do as they see fit.

Originally Posted by John Scott

I'm fairly certain the UK is party to treaties that recognize human rights. So their people may kill civilians, but it is illegal, eh?

Today yes as the U.K. has moved on. From the 20's right up into the 90's they failed to up hold human rights. A reason why the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was started in the late 60's. They even attacked their marches so no the UK was not party to treaties that recognised civil rights.

The actual lack of civil rights in the North is a reason why the IRA became a massive recruiter for its soldiers with Bloody Sunday in Derry being the biggest drive for them.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Wikipdia

During the period known as the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the security forces were accused of operating a shoot-to-kill policy, under which suspects were deliberately killed without any attempt to arrest them. The alleged policy was exclusively aimed at suspected or actual members of Irish Republican paramilitary groups.

Still, that appears aimed at terrorist suspects.

Bloody Sunday

I don't doubt that there were some injustices. In every government their are injustices, and often more than should be excused. In the US there are countless police brutality cases. In Seattle alone, I know of several cases of police brutality. They killed a homeless guy near one of my jobsites in Seattle, and accused him of having a gun, which they never found. Come to think of it, Seattle police kill a lot of people, most of them un-armed.

But that makes the Seattle police criminals, not terrorists, because it is illegal and if it can be proven they go to prison.

[BingoBalls]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Still, that appears aimed at terrorist suspects.

Yes it does but it wasn't always the case. An example is when Internment was introduced (1971) 10 civilians had been shot dead including a priest.

Originally Posted by John Scott

it is illegal and if it can be proven they go to prison.

Thats the difference between being controlled by your own country and being controlled by an occupied force. The occupied forces enforce their laws when they feel its in "their" best interests.

A lot of crimes have been proven but for the most part nobody has served time for them, well those in the armed forces anyway. Such examples of that is Paratrooper Lee Clegg who shot dead 3 teenagers for stealing a car - hardly terrorists or suspected terrorists.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

IRA? Known world wide as a terrorist group. They targeted civilians. Another thing that sets the terrorists apart from freedom fighters is their lack of good judgment. When they go around targeting civilians, they cannot expect to be given much respect/credibility.

Now take a person like Menachem Wolfovitch Begin, he was the leader of a terrorist organisation which did kill civilians, he was even responcible for a terrorist attack on the King david Hotel (1946) in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people.

April 1648, his organisation, named Etsel, massacred 110 - 120 civllians in a Palestinian village named Deir Yassin.

The same dude became prime minister of Israel and according to several of the American presidents (who ate his poop), he was very respectable.

Terrorist, no?

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Now take a person like Menachem Wolfovitch Begin, he was the leader of a terrorist organisation which did kill civilians, he was even responcible for a terrorist attack on the King david Hotel (1946) in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people.

April 1648, his organisation, named Etsel, massacred 110 - 120 civllians in a Palestinian village named Deir Yassin.

The same dude became prime minister of Israel and according to several of the American presidents (who ate his poop), he was very respectable.

Terrorist, no?

That is one of the examples i was referring to. he even became the peace-nobel-prize later on.......
but i think he was the head of the Irgun.......not Etsel.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by robert s.

That is one of the examples i was referring to. he even became the peace-nobel-prize later on.......
but i think he was the head of the Irgun.......not Etsel.

From 1943 he was the leader of Etsel. Historical fact.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions his leadership of Etsel, also known as Irgun Zvai Leumi, from 1943 to 1948 when Israel was formed

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...in#229912.hook

[robert s.]

thanks - i think at the end it is the same thing, just different names.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsel