• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Do you agree with the statement?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 57.5%
  • No

    Votes: 17 42.5%

  • Total voters
    40
:roll:

Right. Because Jefferson was all about time-bombing restaurants, and what he had in mind when he wrote that was maximizing civilian casualties.

This is patently absurd. There are rebels who use terrorist tactics. But not all rebels do. Our Founding Fathers did not. They were traitors to the Crown. But they were not terrorists.

You are caught up on the fact that they don't fight fair. The British didn't think we fought fair either as we hid behind trees while they marched and played music out in the open.
 
It wasn't just military... It was conducted against women and children by Enlightened men professing the highest values for personal rights and freedom. I understand your point, but I made my point and I am sure that you see it for what it is.

Well, if your point is that people don't always live up to their highest values, then sure. That goes without saying. But it doesn't make them terrorists. It WAS a military operation even if it didn't target only military targets (insomuch as the Indian tribes had "militaries.") It was conducted openly by the Continental Army under orders.

You can always define "terrorism" so broadly as to encapsulate anything you want. There is no standard definition, but it generally refers to non-governmental personnel conducting violence against non-military targets with the specific intent to kill or maim civilians in furtherance of a political goal, usually conducted clandestinely, and generally outside a declared hostility.
 
As would I. I'm not talking about the leadership, I'm talking about the individuals who were IRA members. Some never engaged in terrorism.
I don't doubt that.



]
65% is way off, Wessex. 68% of Protestants are Unionist, but overall using the total population, the numbers are 38% Unionist, 24% Republican, and 35% "Neither"

NI Life and Times Survey - 2003: UNINATID
I don't know how you can be "neither". Either you consider yourself Irish and want to be part of Ireland or you consider yourself British and are a Unionist or perhaps you simply consider yourself an Ulsterman but that is usually a mild loyalist position.
 
Well, if your point is that people don't always live up to their highest values, then sure. That goes without saying. But it doesn't make them terrorists. It WAS a military operation even if it didn't target only military targets (insomuch as the Indian tribes had "militaries.") It was conducted openly by the Continental Army under orders.

You can always define "terrorism" so broadly as to encapsulate anything you want. There is no standard definition, but it generally refers to non-governmental personnel conducting violence against non-military targets with the specific intent to kill or maim civilians in furtherance of a political goal, usually conducted clandestinely, and generally outside a declared hostility.

Oh, I agree... I just like to point out that Washington issued orders to terrorize women and children specifically.
It bugs people... :2razz:
 
Therer's no verbal trap in my question.
Its completely straightforwrd, and very simple.
The answer is as well.

I've read some of your posts before and recognise your debating style is all I'm saying. I've not read any claims anywhere where Hamas say they are freedom fighters.

--So you would agree that Hamas, Hizboolah, and AQ are -not- actually freedom fighters, since they do not actually fight for freedom.

I don't have personal acquaintance with their version of "freedom" - neither do I speak for them. They call themselves a "resistance movement." They also use terrorist tactics which is undeniable.

Personally, I can't think of any freedom fighter or resistance movement that hasn't been involved in atrocities against civilians (which is also known as "terrorism".) However, as Egoftib has pointed out repeatedly - "freedom" is as subjective as the term "freedom fighter" or "terrorist."
 

Agreed, there were atrocities on both sides during the early 20th Century - both by the IRA and by the British soldiers there.

As far as the fromation of the pIRA goes, this was brought on by protestant paramilitary groups such as the UVF who engaged in terrorism and ended up in positions of authority in such groups as theUDR and RUC.


I'll give you this - Provisional IRA history


Yes, I've watched some of the "truth and reconciliation" hearings which Archbishop Desmond Tutu chaired. What you have to recognise is the IRA and that includes Sinn Fein had to apologise to legitimise their quest for parliamentary power. I'm glad they did - they had a bad history involving brutality within the catholic community - they controlled the drugs trade etc.

However, you will find very few ex servicemen (myself included) who will talk of their call of service in Northern Ireland - we are still targets even though the IRA is no more involved in an up front campaign.

--snip-- Killing members of the government, especially terrorist elements within the government (i.e. the RUC & UDF), in a fight for freedom is not terrorism.

As I said before - there were terror tactics used by both sides.

-- There is no doubt that some members of the pIRA most definitely engaged in terrorism, but it was not a universal tactic employed by every member of the pIRA.

That's a rose tinted review of history I'm afraid. Of course the political leadership and others of nearly every terrorist group is kept away from the frontline atrocities and plans - that's the job of splinter cells and the way modern terror groups are organised.

the pIRA was not the only terrorist group in Northern Ireland, and as far as the ratio of dead civilians to combatants goes, they were far from the worst terrorist group in Northern Ireland.

I'm guessing your point is the British Army in Northern Ireland?
 
Again, freedom is different for each group of people. It is all subjective.

:shock:

That's possibly the most remarkably inane thing I have ever read.

Under you argument, the post-WW2 Nazi resistance fighters (the few that there were) fought for freedom.
 
Last edited:
They are fighting for freedom from Israel.
They are fighting for the power to create an oppressive, theocratic government.
That's NOT fighting for freedom.
 
I may agree with EgoffTib...
The UN must do something right , or as right as possible and establish an independent state of "Palestine", a partition of "greater"Israel..
I think this was tried 60 years ago and was allowed to fail..
So try again !
Or there will be war and suffering for another 100 years..
As far as "freedom" goes, this too, has 1,000 definitions..
If the Arabs in Palestine want a repressive theocratic government, then so be it...
IMO , terrorism is done out of hatred and fear, not really to accomplish anything politically...whereas the "freedom fighters cause is to be left alone and respected....something many nations in this world cannot handle..
 
For the life of me I can not understand how some of you can support an organization that is responsible for suicide bombings of civilians.

I can see why people would refer to them as freedom fighters likewise i can see why people refer to American and British soldiers as opressors and terrorists - That does not mean you support it
 
You do realize by that logic rape is just a form of sex then. :roll:
You can:
-Use terrorism, making you a terrorist.
-Fight for actual freedom, making you a freedom fighter
-Fight for actual freedom using terrorism, making you BOTH a freedom fighter AND a terrorist

But, unless you are fighting for actual freedom, you cannot be a freedom fighter.
 
Well unionists consistently get the most votes, surely that demonstrates a high level of support? Also if only 24% of the population classes themselves as republican then surely that would surgest most are against a united ireland?


First, we'll ignore the obvious gerrymandering that occured for so long. This is an indisputable fact, but we'll still ignore it for the sake of the current debate.

Let's just look over the past few elections to see what has occured:

For the 2007 election, the two major Unionis parties, the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist Party, lost 3 seats collectively. (6 gained by the DUP, 9 lost by the UUP). 54 seats between these two parties.

The two major Nationalist parties, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour Party, gained 2 seats collectively (2 lost by the SDLP, 4 gained by Sinn Fein). 44 seats between these two parties.

There are 7 Alliance Party seats (1 seat gained since 2003). And 3 held by minor parties, including the Progressive Unionist party rasing the Unionist total to 55. (But of the 3 minor party seats in 2003, one was Progressive unionist party, which was retained, the other was United Kingdom Unionist Party which was lost)

So in 2003, the Unionist parties combined to hold 58 seats (about 54%), while the Nationalists held 42 seats (about 39%). In 2007 those numbers are 55 Unionist (51%) 44 Nationalist (41%)


And the "majority' vote has a pretty clear deliniation. The north-northeast is Unionist (Mostly Eastern Derry, Antrim, and Northern Down) while the south-southwest is Republican (Western Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, most of Armagh, and Southern Down). Belfast is split pretty much along the same lines. South and West are Republican, North and East are Unionist.


So although there is a unionist majority, it grows more tentative with every election.

And all that is shown while discounting all of the gerrymandering that has taken place over decades.
 
You can:
-Use terrorism, making you a terrorist.
-Fight for actual freedom, making you a freedom fighter
-Fight for actual freedom using terrorism, making you BOTH a freedom fighter AND a terrorist

But, unless you are fighting for actual freedom, you cannot be a freedom fighter.




This is true.
 
You are caught up on the fact that they don't fight fair. The British didn't think we fought fair either as we hid behind trees while they marched and played music out in the open.




Fair?


Only losers and liars fight fair. ;)


Our FF's did not use terrorism. People who compare them to the savages today are clueless.
 
Last edited:
But, unless you are fighting for actual freedom, you cannot be a freedom fighter.

Who decides who is fighting for freedom and who isn't?
 
Fair?


Only losers and liars fight fair. ;)


Our FF's did not use terrorism. People who compare them to the savages today are clueless.

What makes them savages?

They don't use ethical warfare. In other words, they don't fight fair. They subscribe to "All's fair in love and war." The ends justify their means in their eyes.
 
What makes them savages?

You are kidding right?

They don't use ethical warfare. In other words, they don't fight fair. They subscribe to "All's fair in love and war." The ends justify their means in their eyes.


Killing civillians as targets is barbary.
 
Who decides who is fighting for freedom and who isn't?
That's determined by the objectives of those fighting.
If you are fighting for the power to oppress others, then you're not fighting for freedom, you're fighting for power.
 
That's determined by the objectives of those fighting.

Al Qaeda and Taliban and many Iraqi resistance groups make the case they are fighting against western "crusaders" who invaded their land. Would that be fighting for freedom or not?
 
Nope. If they want it, then they are fighting to set up a barbaric religeous regeime, they are not fighting for freedom.

But if people WANT a theocratic system, do they not have the freedom to choose that system?
 
But if people WANT a theocratic system, do they not have the freedom to choose that system?




REally so all the woman under the Taliban wanted to be forced into being beggars if they were widowed?

Your kidding right?


Fighting for the "freedom" of a small group to oppress a larger group is not "freedom fighting". Sorry.,
 
Back
Top Bottom