[Lorric]

"Destroy the society because it opposes you" vs. "wars are won by destroying either the ability or will of the enemy to fight" are perhaps reconcilable views, but saying that you agree with Starslayer following your previous statements, no, that doesn't really follow. You basically tracked the logic behind most terrorist groups and want us to say it follows that behind state use of military force.

I actually thought of that, that terrorist groups are doing the same thing.

The difference is, I wouldn't be wanting to fight to impose my ideals upon someone else. Just protect my own. I would not be the aggressor.

[karajorma]

Quite a few terrorist groups could also make that claim.

[Lorric]

Quite a few terrorist groups could also make that claim.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Phantom Hoover]

you can't use pithy quotes when you clearly don't have the first idea what they actually mean

[Lorric]

you can't use pithy quotes when you clearly don't have the first idea what they actually mean

Of course I know what it means.

Now pithy, I had to look that up.

Now we just need Legate Damar to show up 

[karajorma]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Well in the context of my post, you're basically saying you're a terrorist (or would become one to achieve your goals) but believe you're a freedom fighter. Which is basically why people were coming down on you for advocating total war.

[Lorric]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Well in the context of my post, you're basically saying you're a terrorist (or would become one to achieve your goals) but believe you're a freedom fighter. Which is basically why people were coming down on you for advocating total war.

No, you have received the wrong message from that.

What I was trying to say was I don't know what terrorist groups you are referring to, and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[karajorma]

Pick pretty much any terrorist group you like actually. Very few people get up in the morning and say "You know what! I'm going to go out and kill innocent women and children today!"

Pretty much every terrorist acts in the way they do because they feel that they have been oppressed by someone and it's only through acts of terror that they can get that someone to stop and give them what they want. The IRA believe the British started it, Hesbollah* believe that the Israelis started it... the list goes on and on.


*interesting discovery as a result of googling for the spelling of Hesbollah is that they have a Facebook page. I really can't help but think there is a Cracked.com article to be made out of that news.

[Lorric]

Pick pretty much any terrorist group you like actually. Very few people get up in the morning and say "You know what! I'm going to go out and kill innocent women and children today!"

Pretty much every terrorist acts in the way they do because they feel that they have been oppressed by someone and it's only through acts of terror that they can get that someone to stop and give them what they want. The IRA believe the British started it, Hesbollah* believe that the Israelis started it... the list goes on and on.


*interesting discovery as a result of googling for the spelling of Hesbollah is that they have a Facebook page. I really can't help but think there is a Cracked.com article to be made out of that news.

I currently don't know of any groups using terrorist tactics who I regard as freedom fighters. But I know I could regard terrorists as freedom fighters under the right circumstances. Could you?

The radical Islamists are trying to impose their way on the whole World though. It's possible if they wiped out Israel they'd be content with that, but I could imagine those terrorists then joining the wider effort to convert the World to Islam.

[Mars]

Pick pretty much any terrorist group you like actually. Very few people get up in the morning and say "You know what! I'm going to go out and kill innocent women and children today!"

Pretty much every terrorist acts in the way they do because they feel that they have been oppressed by someone and it's only through acts of terror that they can get that someone to stop and give them what they want. The IRA believe the British started it, Hesbollah* believe that the Israelis started it... the list goes on and on.


*interesting discovery as a result of googling for the spelling of Hesbollah is that they have a Facebook page. I really can't help but think there is a Cracked.com article to be made out of that news.

I currently don't know of any groups using terrorist tactics who I regard as freedom fighters. But I know I could regard terrorists as freedom fighters under the right circumstances. Could you?

The radical Islamists are trying to impose their way on the whole World though. It's possible if they wiped out Israel they'd be content with that, but I could imagine those terrorists then joining the wider effort to convert the World to Islam.

Hezbollah is a great example of a group that are a people's freedom fighters and the rest of the worlds terrorists.

EDIT:

In fact put yourself in their position- lets say Iran has invaded your state and has stopped all flow of imports and exports. Isn't your first desire to go all Red Dawn on their ass?

HINT:

They're still wrong.

[BlueFlames]

I currently don't know of any groups using terrorist tactics who I regard as freedom fighters.

...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Phantom Hoover]

qed

[Lorric]

No. Karajorma might have told me of one.

[BlueFlames]

Lorric, you kind of miss the point.

The "One man's terrorist..." line is meant to highlight the relativism (and limited usefulness) of the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter".  Two people, when evaluating the same third party can come to opposite conclusions about whether that third party is a terrorist or freedom fighter.  Not twelve hours after saying that line, though, you make the broad implication that your definition of "terrorist" is somehow free of that relativism.

Which is it?  Can one man's terrorist really be another's freedom fighter, or is there some objective definition, to which you are privy, of "terrorist" that precludes a terrorist from being otherwise designated?  If the latter, do please provide that definition, so that we might evaluate its objectiveness.

(Apologies, incidentally, if I'm derailing the derail of the derail.)

[Lorric]

Lorric, you kind of miss the point.

The "One man's terrorist..." line is meant to highlight the relativism (and limited usefulness) of the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter".  Two people, when evaluating the same third party can come to opposite conclusions about whether that third party is a terrorist or freedom fighter.  Not twelve hours after saying that line, though, you make the broad implication that your definition of "terrorist" is somehow free of that relativism.

Which is it?  Can one man's terrorist really be another's freedom fighter, or is there some objective definition, to which you are privy, of "terrorist" that precludes a terrorist from being otherwise designated?  If the latter, do please provide that definition, so that we might evaluate its objectiveness.

(Apologies, incidentally, if I'm derailing the derail of the derail.)

Yes, I know that. You could just search for a relevant topic on Israel and Palestine, and some would call them terrorists and some would call them freedom fighters.

I don't think you have to be exclusively one or the other. You can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Terrorism is a method of fighting a war. A terrorist is someone who practices this. The freedom fighter part is what they are fighting for. I don't know of any groups conducting terrorism right now though that I would consider freedom fighters, they're the aggressors, not the oppressed. They're not fighting for the people they're fighting for themselves. They're fighting to conquer, not to liberate.

[Phantom Hoover]

lorric are you even arguing a coherent point or are you just responding for the sake of it without the first thought as to what you last said

[Lorric]

lorric are you even arguing a coherent point or are you just responding for the sake of it without the first thought as to what you last said

I wouldn't be fussed if the topic just stopped here. But I'm not responding just for the sake of it. I want people to know I wouldn't condone terrorism except in the most extreme circumstances. And maybe just stating that will be enough. The original Dambusters stuff seems to be over.

[deathfun]

Define extreme circumstances

[Lorric]

Define extreme circumstances

Alright I'll try to invent a scenario where I'd consider a terrorist a freedom fighter.

Country A sits on the border with Country B.

The people of Country A decide they want to carve out an empire for themselves, starting with Country B.

Country A is vastly superior to country B. Country B's military is crushed by Country A in a matter of days, and the country occupied.

Country A's soldiers behave like beasts in Country B. Killing, raping, looting, burning, doing whatever they want, whenever they want. They also start massacring entire towns, and people from Country A start coming over the border and taking possession of these massacred towns.

What's left of Country B's forces know they can't fight Country A. So they slip over the border into Country A. They announce that Country A must leave Country B, and for as long as they don't, people will die. Then they start killing people. The people that supported the invasion. They can't beat the soldiers, but if they kill enough people, they can make the people call the soldiers back.

[newman]

There are no circumstances under which killing civilians to get your point across is justified. That's where I'd call the difference - under the circumstances you outlined, setting a bomb in a military base is taking the fight to the enemy combatants, and I can call these people freedom fighters. Since they can't take on the enemy in an open fight due to being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, they need to resort to guerrilla tactics. But my sympathies stop the moment they put a dirty bomb in a movie theater full of kids, parents, etc. It's monstrous, and such methods will only serve to enrage the enemy country's public, enabling their leaders to treat your own country even more harshly without too much public opposition. They can blow up buses, schools, whatever they like, the other country is never just going to say "you know what, this is too much trouble, let's just pack up and leave". And terrorism isn't about that - that's just an excuse to go vent on innocents. But honestly, this was your main mistake:

Alright I'll try to invent a scenario where I'd consider a terrorist a freedom fighter.

There isn't one. Terrorists try to get their points across by targeting innocents, which renders anything they say irrelevant. It's that simple in my book.