View Full Version : "Rebels" vs. "terrorists"
SerbPVO
10-03-2006, 06:02 PM
I'm reading all this whining & moaning about the Islamic terrorism and I wonder...i remember a mere decade ago (pre-2001) when Russians and Serbs were fighting Islamic terrorists throughout Chechnya, Dagestan, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc...these "nice folks" were being branded as some kind of "rebels" & "freedom fighters" in large majority of the so-called "Western" media:D
It seems only now they have become "terrorists";)
Since it seems that one man's terrorist is another man's rebel....
for me , Al-Qaida and all its members are rebels, not terrorists;)
Your so wrong it hurts, please refrain from posting ****e.
alexz
10-03-2006, 06:10 PM
I'm reading all this whining & moaning about the Islamic terrorism and I wonder...i remember a mere decade ago (pre-2001) when Russians and Serbs were fighting Islamic terrorists throughout Chechnya, Dagestan, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc...these "nice folks" were being branded as some kind of "rebels" & "freedom fighters" in large majority of the so-called "Western" media:D
It seems only now they have become "terrorists";)
Since it seems that one man's terrorist is another man's rebel....
for me , Al-Qaida and all its members are rebels, not terrorists;)
Two wrongs don't make a right and the enemy of your enemy is
not necessarly your friend.
Dasein
10-03-2006, 06:11 PM
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or cause. One can be both a 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist'.
LaoSexMachine
10-03-2006, 06:15 PM
Cobra=Terrorist
Deceptacons=Rebel
Pokemon=Terrorist
Autobots=Freedom Fighter
Anything else I miss?
Kilgor
10-03-2006, 06:16 PM
Every government does it. Not just the "west"
It reminds me of the latest remarks from the kremlin about georgian "bandits" and "terrorists".
LaoSexMachine
10-03-2006, 06:17 PM
ooooooooohhh, someone doesn't think AQ are terrorist. That is going to hurt my feelings./Sarcasm/
alexz
10-03-2006, 06:24 PM
ooooooooohhh, someone doesn't think AQ are terrorist. That is going to hurt my feelings./Sarcasm/
He doesn't belive that their are not terrorist him self, He just
want to get even for what he (rightly) feels is hypocrisy.
He just takes a childish approach to it.
2Sheds_Jackson
10-03-2006, 06:29 PM
Cobra=Terrorist
Deceptacons=Rebel
Pokemon=Terrorist
Autobots=Freedom Fighter
Anything else I miss?
Thundercats? Herculoids? Frankly, I'm on the fence.
americanbychoice
10-03-2006, 06:46 PM
Destro = terrorist, "hails from Callander, Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destro)"
Cobra Commander = misunderstood
Han Solo = SHOT FIRST, DAMNIT
Pope = right ;)
William Tecumseh Sherman = Big Pimp w/ Strong Pimp Hand
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.
...
You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.
Sherman -> :bash: <- Atlanta
LaoSexMachine
10-03-2006, 06:49 PM
So does that make Serpentor a terrorist leader like UBL?
Flamming_Python
10-03-2006, 07:55 PM
Every government does it. Not just the "west"
It reminds me of the latest remarks from the kremlin about georgian "bandits" and "terrorists".
Oh no here comes Kilgor. The Russia STRONG crew better brace for the attack :roll:
Kilgor
10-03-2006, 08:15 PM
just accept it, every government uses terms like the above to suit their needs. Friends and enemy's change quite frequently.
Oh no here comes Kilgor. The Russia STRONG crew better brace for the attack :roll:
come on. it's almost first time when ze man comes with reasonable arguments. p-)
and this "georgian" remarks - can you imagine Kilgor NOT talking at least little shyte about Russia? hehe.
by the way Kilgor is right. (omg i say that).
state legalized "terrorism" is always here. it can be something like "if you hide our enemies (err, Taleban, muji, chech separatists etc.) we bomb your houses, where they can supposedly be".
on the other side we can see "if you help federals (insert any governmental structure) we come and kill you".
and there is not as much difference as we usually think. dusty ways of politic.
Rictor
10-03-2006, 08:39 PM
But if one is aware of the bias, then shouldn't they at least try to remain objective, even if their government is not? Alright, it's a given that every government will spin language to suit it's needs; that much is beyond discussion. But I don't understand the logic of someone who acknowledges and agrees with the above statement then turning around and saying "Well yeah, but so-and-so are dirty no good terrorist baby killers", when clearly the matter is entirely subjective.
For example, the Taliban, not al-Queda, but the Pashtun fundamentalist movement. I think it would be hard to argue that they are terrorists, given that they occupy a position similar to the classical resistance movement (ie they are using guerilla tactics to attack a foreign occupier). The groups they associate with, for example al-Q, clearly are terrorists, given that they have no territory to defend, they are transnational, and their actions have solely been against foreign (mostly civilian) targets.
Midav
10-03-2006, 09:52 PM
Serb makes a good point. These people were mainly branded as good folk fighting the evil oppressors and many of us in the west saw it that way. I can honestly say that I was mixed in my feelings for the years prior to the Kosovo bombings. It was during that time (Kosovo) that I felt it was not right. Yeah, I supported my country during a time of war and admit that. But, I felt it was very, very wrong.
My biggest wish is that all our resources, people... our countries would unite to fight this threat. United as one, we could be a very, very powerful force.. not just in power, not just in weapons, but in mind and spirit as well. Where it counts.
guest
10-03-2006, 10:14 PM
There is a difference between bombing a bus of people, or be-heading a school teacher.. And attacking one of my patrols...
Both are the enemy, but one *may* get to surrender... maybe...
Miles.
10-03-2006, 10:54 PM
Kill or capture both.
2Sheds_Jackson
10-04-2006, 12:10 AM
For example, the Taliban, not al-Queda, but the Pashtun fundamentalist movement. I think it would be hard to argue that they are terrorists, given that they occupy a position similar to the classical resistance movement (ie they are using guerilla tactics to attack a foreign occupier). The groups they associate with, for example al-Q, clearly are terrorists, given that they have no territory to defend, they are transnational, and their actions have solely been against foreign (mostly civilian) targets.
Gotta disagree with you here - not in principle, but about the Taliban being terrorists.
The Taliban and AQ were very, very tightly integrated. AQ's "055 Brigade" was integrated into the Taliban's Army (the national army of Afghanistan at the time). OBL's son was married off to Mullah Omar's daughter. OBL/AQ financed and supported the Taliban. The Taliban protected Bin Laden from extradition, calling him a guest and a man without sin.
All this makes the Taliban - at least as it existed prior to the US invasion, just as culpable as any other AQ members, IMHO.
Limeyfellow
10-04-2006, 12:25 AM
Terrorists, rebels and freedom fighters get thrown around all the time and most the time they are just the arbitory word of the day. A good example would be the IRA. Different groups would call them each of these and alot more. I been called alsorts of things in the US for even suggesting they were terrorists and bad people. Its mainly political points.
camedia
10-04-2006, 12:29 AM
How taliban are terrorists? Explain!
They were basically a part of government lets say, and they were supprted by the people of Afghanistan. Majority were with them, after all they drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
As i am typing this, i also have looked up a news regarding war on taliban cannot be win.
http://www.***********************/showthread.php?p=1436#post1436
Calling Al-Qaeda terrorists can be justified, but Taliban? Wait a minute!
How taliban are terrorists? Explain!
They were basically a part of government lets say, and they were supprted by the people of Afghanistan. Majority were with them, after all they drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
As i am typing this, i also have looked up a news regarding war on taliban cannot be win.
http://www.***********************/showthread.php?p=1436#post1436
Calling Al-Qaeda terrorists can be justified, but Taliban? Wait a minute!
They were supported by mostly the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, which was about 38-50% of the population. The various other communities, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. probably had little support for them.
BTW, the Taliban came to exist only in 1995, which was six years AFTER the Soviets left.
45.cal
10-04-2006, 12:57 AM
Thundercats? Herculoids? Frankly, I'm on the fence.
Ewoks, Jabba and gang,the whole rebel alliance...I'm thinking the galactic Empire was screeming "Evil do-ers" There is a case here.
Steelhead
10-04-2006, 01:51 AM
I dont see how someone who kills innocent civilians is not a terrorist.
45.cal
10-04-2006, 02:31 AM
Jokes aside, the Taliban in everyway are terroists. They are a backwards society under the taliban rule, and we need to set a example.Giving hope,as apposed to spreading fear. We should be in it for the long haul.
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-04-2006, 02:46 AM
I dont see how someone who kills innocent civilians is not a terrorist.
So Nazis were terrorists? RAF Bomber Command? etc?
SRPSKI METAK
10-04-2006, 02:56 AM
I think it is rhetoric (this terrorist vs freedomfighters) for example when the US secretly with help from one of the "axis of evil" countrys Iran brought mujaheden into Bosnia in the 90s they were freedom fighters.When the CIA trained the uck or kla is Kosovo they were training" freedom fighters" or "good guys" .But when these nice Islamic gentlemen decided why not fly a plane into a building on American soil well then they were TERRORISTS!!!! blood thursty killers.It depends on whom the "freedom fighting/terrorists" are attacking.If they are Russians and Serbs then it is one terminology and when its Americans and Brits then another term.The more interesting question is who created them(CIA) and how do we now get rid of them?
Sergei
10-04-2006, 03:14 AM
Oh no here comes Kilgor. The Russia STRONG crew better brace for the attack :roll:
No need to. The guy is right about one thing. The word "terrorist" is too freely thrown around like a football. Anybody can be labeled as one, if his views or ideas don't coincide with the "general line of the Party".
dimasorokine
10-04-2006, 03:53 AM
Your so wrong it hurts, please refrain from posting ****e.
What a great arguement! Anything else to add to the thread?
My opinion: Every government in the world is guilty of propoganda and info wars...so the original poster is right. Is OBL a Terrorist? Depends on who you ask.
-Dima
dimasorokine
10-04-2006, 03:57 AM
I dont see how someone who kills innocent civilians is not a terrorist.
You should have used the word "Targets" rather than "kills"...Because the US, Israeli, Russian and other armies of the world KILL a lot more innocent people than all of the worlds terrorists - Do they plan to do it? No one knows, but they make it a priority to explain themselves.
-Dima
Fazla
10-04-2006, 07:46 AM
I don't get how did USA help bringing in mujaheedins in bosnia where already every muslim fighting was a mujaheedin.
Maybe you meant "foreign fighters"?
Considering there were at maximum 2000 foreign fighters in Bosnia (I am not using serbian sources here, now if you wanna enlighten us how they were 20000 go on) out of an army of 250000 ppl, I cannot understand
1)how were serbs exactly fighting those foreign fighters linked to AQ considering they were less than 1% of the whole army)
2)how is every muslim coming from abroad linked to AQ.
3)how did serbs exactly fight against them when the most of them were used in Central Bosnia against Croats
4)how did they fight against "islamic extremism" when foreign fighters were introduced in Bosnia after the war started
:|
What a great arguement! Anything else to add to the thread?
yeah actually there is, when someone calls Al'queda freedom fighters, whos freedom are they fighting for? Al'queda is an extremist group whos goals are to kill anyone who isnt a belieiver and to impose islamic rule across the globe.
they fight for not against oppresion and their religion is a twisted version of what innocent muslims believe in, they impose "terror" through attacks on civilians and fight for no-ones cause but their own.
So this guys saying Al'queda, responsible for the beheading and murdering of innocent civilians is in the name of "freedom?" give me a break. Even the insurgents are reported to be feuding with them and their murderous ways.
wolverine223
10-04-2006, 11:49 AM
thats a very good question, i guess back then bin laden was a freedom fighter
balkan_boy
10-04-2006, 12:15 PM
its all about politics, and the politics is a bitch... I mean Israel is calling the palestinians, or their armed groups, terrorists. But palestinians see Israel as "terrorists". Its in the eye of the beholder :)
Hollis
10-04-2006, 12:28 PM
its all about politics, and the politics is a bitch... I mean Israel is calling the palestinians, or their armed groups, terrorists. But palestinians see Israel as "terrorists". Its in the eye of the beholder :)
That is propaganda, to shape what the "Beholder" sees, there are actual definitions if one ever bothers to read and to be able to apply the correct title to the corresponding group.
I agree about politics, it is all about mudding the definitions up to make one's own side to be seen as the savior of all of man kind and the other side as the most evil crud in the universe.
hardpresident
10-04-2006, 01:17 PM
Ia mere decade ago (pre-2001) when Russians and Serbs were fighting Islamic terrorists throughout Chechnya, Dagestan, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc...these "nice folks" were being branded as some kind of "rebels" & "freedom fighters" in large majority of the so-called "Western" media:D
Did bosnians become terrorists in your eyes when they fought back and didnīt let you slaughter them too easily?
balkan_boy
10-04-2006, 01:19 PM
That is propaganda, to shape what the "Beholder" sees, there are actual definitions if one ever bothers to read and to be able to apply the correct title to the corresponding group.
correct... and as we have seen before and now in the war no one cares about the right definition, all sides just try to make the other look evil as you say. much of the blame goes to medias as well as they have much power in a situation like that.
bu then again we must keep in mind that propaganda is just another weapon.
Digimon
10-04-2006, 03:54 PM
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or cause. One can be both a 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist'.
This is a good point. Being a freedom fighter is about the cause, being I terrorist is about the means. Selecting morally objectionable means does not invalidate the legitimacy of one’s cause. The legitimacy of one’s cause, does not justify one’s means.
The problem is of course that at different times, depending on the political expediency, one and the same group could be referred to as “terrorists” or “freedom fighters”. The focus is placed on the legitimacy of one’s cause, or, at a different time, on the illegitimacy of one’s means, thus creating a sympathy or antipathy in the audience. These methods are typical for media, political pundits, and ideologues. Intentional use of the terms to manipulate opinion, however, must be separated from metaphorical or rhetorical use meant to provide an insight through a dramatic simile.
Some media outlets have decided to abstain from the use of such terms as a matter of editorial policy. BBC and CBC came repeatedly under criticism from the Jewish lobby groups for refraining from the use of the term “terrorist” because , as they maintain, the term is too “loaded”.
Rhetorical conflation of terms, however, does not mean that the terms in question are ambiguous, vague, or have no objective content. The important question is to settle what constitutes the necessary and sufficient conditions for something qualifying as a “terrorist”, a “terrorist act”, or a “terrorist group”. Those who are interested might want to make their own suggestions for the sake of discussion.
Fazla
10-04-2006, 04:25 PM
Did bosnians become terrorists in your eyes when they fought back and didnīt let you slaughter them too easily?
oh probably you didn't know, but according to serbPVO, you've just been fed up with big propaganda - what is strange is that the whole world, including historians, and the CIA is fooled with such propaganda!!!! but thank God we have enlightened people like serbPVO who can free us of our ignorance
haze99
10-07-2006, 10:23 PM
daesin, terrorism maybe a tactic, though the groups who currently use are Muslim. (Not Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Jewish) And to continue to deny the reality will only be to your detriment.
If you want to live in the world of pretend, then yeah, the terms are interchangable. Though as MoFo stated, there are clear and distinct difference between the two.
Didn't Al Qaeda just make a video tape saying everyone must convert to Islam or die?
How exactly is this going to be spun as freedom fighting? I await your answers leftists.
Didn't Al Qaeda just make a video tape saying everyone must convert to Islam or die?
How exactly is this going to be spun as freedom fighting? I await your answers leftists.
Actually, I believe that AQ wants us 'infidels' to either convert to Islam, submit to dhimmitude, or die.
AK-Lover
10-07-2006, 11:57 PM
The terrorists in Bosnia where those burning christian churches and slaughtering Serbian refugees and prisoners, such as the 505th Buzimska Brigade which was almost entirely made up of local Bosnian muslims.
AK-Lover
10-08-2006, 12:02 AM
WARNING GRAPHIC:
These are the people you supported and now they are fighting you in Iraq and Afghanistan, think about it.
http://www.rs-icty.org/gallery%20eng.htm
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 12:08 AM
The terrorists in Bosnia where those burning christian churches and slaughtering Serbian refugees and prisoners, such as the 505th Buzimska Brigade which was almost entirely made up of local Bosnian muslims.
And Serbian units didn't burn Mosques and slaughter mulim refugees and prisoners?
Face it, all sides were as bad as one another in that conflict. None of you have the moral high ground.
AK-Lover
10-08-2006, 12:10 AM
And Serbian units didn't burn Mosques and slaughter mulim refugees and prisoners?
Face it, all sides were as bad as one another in that conflict. None of you have the moral high ground.
You are correct, BUT the western media surely isn't making it sound this way.
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 12:12 AM
Neither are you.
Lokos
10-08-2006, 01:56 AM
None of you have the moral high ground
Which begs the question: why intervene on behalf of one of the sides, then?
Ridiculous policy making is the trademark of US and European interference in the affairs of the Balkans nations.
Lokos
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 02:05 AM
When you can't sort your life(s) out then the responsibility is taken away from you(s).
If you don't like that then it behoves you(s) to sort your life(s) out.
CyberSpec
10-08-2006, 02:25 AM
When you can't sort your life(s) out then the responsibility is taken away from you(s).
If you don't like that then it behoves you(s) to sort your life(s) out.
So by recognising an artificial state (even the blind could see what would happen) and openly supporting one side in a civil war, you have sorted everything out....amazing!
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 02:43 AM
Oh, so its my fault?
You are a **** aren't you.
CyberSpec
10-08-2006, 03:02 AM
Oh, so its my fault?
You are a **** aren't you.
It's nothing personal.....and BTW, I've got a set of ********s as well
Over and Out!
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 03:07 AM
Facinating. And look, you're talking out of your arse.
Lokos
10-08-2006, 04:10 AM
When you can't sort your life(s) out then the responsibility is taken away from you(s).
If you don't like that then it behoves you(s) to sort your life(s) out.
Love the patronizing attitude, you should definitely keep that up.
Unfortunately, you missed the point in its entirety. The point being 'Why intervene on behalf of a particular side if none of them hold the moral high ground?' It's not a matter of why, it's a matter of how.
And the how of it means that, in an attempt to 'sort out our lives for us' (gee, thanks, mom), Western intervention has managed to generate a whole lot of rage, and a whole lot of resentment, and has set the stage for major conflicts in the near future.
Lokos
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 04:25 AM
Western intervention has managed to generate a whole lot of rage, and a whole lot of resentment, and has set the stage for major conflicts in the near future.
Right, like there wasn't a "whole lot of rage, and a whole lot of resentment" beforehand, eh?:roll:
All that education and thats the best you can do?
gee, thanks, mom
Anytime boy.
Anyhoo, as much as you want to throw a hissy fit and lash out at someone. You ultimately have no-one to blame but yourselves.
So flail impotently away, why don't you?
I couldn't care less.
AK-Lover
10-08-2006, 10:11 AM
Right, like there wasn't a "whole lot of rage, and a whole lot of resentment" beforehand, eh?:roll:
All that education and thats the best you can do?
Anytime boy.
Anyhoo, as much as you want to throw a hissy fit and lash out at someone. You ultimately have no-one to blame but yourselves.
So flail impotently away, why don't you?
I couldn't care less.
But still you choose to lecture us on what we did wrong and how we should behave.
CyberSpec
10-08-2006, 10:42 AM
Lectures?
If I need lessons on how to become an obnoxious A-Hole, I'll know who to contact.
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 02:46 PM
But still you choose to lecture us on what we did wrong and how we should behave.
Get your facts straight. I didn't lecture you on anything let alone what you did wrong. If I did lecture you it would a lot more than a couple of lines in a post to be effective. Probably need a **** load of crayons as well.
If I need lessons on how to become an obnoxious A-Hole, I'll know who to contact.
Look in a mirror, it'll be faster.
Argyll
10-08-2006, 03:15 PM
daesin, terrorism maybe a tactic, though the groups who currently use are Muslim. (Not Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Jewish) And to continue to deny the reality will only be to your detriment.
If you want to live in the world of pretend, then yeah, the terms are interchangable. Though as MoFo stated, there are clear and distinct difference between the two.
That's where you're out of touch, there are dozens of non Muslim terrorist Groups who are actively engaged in terrorism....
AK-Lover
10-08-2006, 04:22 PM
Get your facts straight. I didn't lecture you on anything let alone what you did wrong. If I did lecture you it would a lot more than a couple of lines in a post to be effective. Probably need a **** load of crayons as well.
Look in a mirror, it'll be faster.
Why are you trying to instigate the members posting on this thread?
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 05:36 PM
Read my posts carefully. The only one baiting here is you.
AK-Lover
10-08-2006, 05:40 PM
I guess personal insults aren't flamebait then.
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-08-2006, 11:01 PM
He insulted me so I returned the favour.
What? You turn the other cheek, do you?
Funny, I haven't seen much evidence of that. Or are you displaying a double standard here?
AK-Lover
10-08-2006, 11:44 PM
So by recognising an artificial state (even the blind could see what would happen) and openly supporting one side in a civil war, you have sorted everything out....amazing!
Hardly an insult to this statment.
When you can't sort your life(s) out then the responsibility is taken away from you(s).
If you don't like that then it behoves you(s) to sort your life(s) out.
Almost like you're talking down on us with an all knowing attitude.
Someone's terrorist is always another one's freedom fighter.
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-09-2006, 02:49 PM
Almost like you're talking down on us with an all knowing attitude.
Almost like you don't like me pointing out facts like none of you are morally superior to anyone else in this issue when you portray your side as the only victim in it.
Lokos
10-09-2006, 06:51 PM
Right, like there wasn't a "whole lot of rage, and a whole lot of resentment" beforehand, eh?
All that education and thats the best you can do?
Of course there was a 'whole lot of rage, and a wholte lot of resentment' before. But what's the point of an intervention intended to 'sort out our lives for us', if all you're in fact doing is resetting the clock until the next meltdown? You're not sorting out anything. You're fighting the symptoms, not the disease. I see it in just about every corner of Western foreign policy making (big generalization, but it works with relatively few exceptions). From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Southern Asia, to Africa etc. And it's so shallow and self interested that it makes a mockery of any intervention based on 'humanitarian' grounds.
Anyhoo, as much as you want to throw a hissy fit and lash out at someone. You ultimately have no-one to blame but yourselves.
For the Bosnian War? Sure. For Western intervention? Well, yes, we can blame 'you' (the Western powers that intervened) for that. It's not as if there is no logical disconnect between particular action and this particular reaction, in this case. One does simply entail the other.
So flail impotently away, why don't you?
I couldn't care less.
Then, please, stop caring and 'halt die klappe', as the Germans would say.
Anytime boy.
Heh. Damn, you nailed me. With that wit, prime time TV is only a step in the right direction away. Srsly.
Almost like you don't like me pointing out facts like none of you are morally superior to anyone else in this issue when you portray your side as the only victim in it.
Here's a newsflash: no side in the Bosnian conflict had any sort of moral 'upper hand'. We know this. But that includes the intervening powers.
Lokos
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.