thetrees Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Except when they express it as an opinion, rather than necessarily a fact. As it happens I was a huge admirer of Mandela, because I believe that he had a similar belief in the need to overcome the past and move forward. But the debate was about the thin grey line between terrorist and freedom fighter, and I threw up Gandhi as someone who could never be described as a terrorist, but accomplished a similar achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Except when they express it as a personal opinion, in the context of a debate about the thin grey line between terrorist and freedom fighter. FWIW I was a huge admirer of Mandela, who I believed to be an inspirational character in the history of the world.Double throw. Damned iPhone! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 When people say the greatest and define it with a single person its time to look at history a bit more. When people say the greatest and define it with a multitude of people it's time to look at the dictionary definition of superlative a bit more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 This thread has become tedious, hasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 This thread has become tedious, hasn't it?No doubt it soon will with post like this... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 This thread has become tedious, hasn't it? nah that's just semantics, one mans tedious is another mans repetitive 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 My personal hero, for me the greatest human being that ever lived, Mohandas K. Gandhi, pursued a policy of non-violent, civil disobedience. He embodies the true meaning of the title 'freedom fighter'. I admire Ghandi immensely, but to call him a "fighter" is just wrong. Discuss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Semantics or not, it would seem that any person willing to use force to overcome a legitimate power is a terrorist right up to the moment they win, when they suddenly become a freedom fighter and become themselves, the legitimate power. Edited December 9, 2013 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skruff Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Second time I've been called aggressive! I'm really not! I promise. However... On this point, which is a point of semantics, I cannot accept the word terrorist. terrorist ˈtɛrərɪst/ noun noun: terrorist; plural noun: terrorists 1. a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. "a terrorist organization" synonyms: bomber, arsonist, incendiary; gunman, assassin, desperado; hijacker; revolutionary, radical, guerrilla, urban guerrilla, subversive, anarchist, freedom fighter; rareinsurrectionist, insurrectionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Freedom fighter - a fighter for freedom, especially a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.^ That's got to be more appropriate considering what the word terrorist is associated with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si. Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Well were the IRA freedom fighters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 9, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 9, 2013 PLO - terrorists or freedom fighters?The answer is obviously both Not so obvious really. People who hijack planes, with innocents on board, are not freedom fighters. The PLO were fighting for what they believed to be the freedom of an oppressed people ergo they were freedom fighters. They employed terrorist tactics ergo they were also terrorists. There is no thin grey line, it is not an either / or situation. It's a Venn diagram with a large proportion in group A and B. the two terms mean different things. Freedom fighter refers to the cause, terrorist refers to the tactic employed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 PLO - terrorists or freedom fighters?The answer is obviously bothNot so obvious really. People who hijack planes, with innocents on board, are not freedom fighters. The PLO were fighting for what they believed to be the freedom of an oppressed people ergo they were freedom fighters. They employed terrorist tactics ergo they were also terrorists. There is no thin grey line, it is not an either / or situation. It's a Venn diagram with a large proportion in group A and B. the two terms mean different things. Freedom fighter refers to the cause, terrorist refers to the tactic employedIts not as clear as that though, is it. The word terrorist has negative connotations. You can legitimately use the word, but is it appropriate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Surely the thing is that we pretty much agree that we don't like terrorists. So if you choose to call somebody a terrorist it kindof suggests that you don't like them or don't agree with their philosophy. To then defend things by saying "dictionary" this, or "circumstances" that is a bit ridiculous. Just don't call them a terrorist in the first **** place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 PLO - terrorists or freedom fighters?The answer is obviously both Not so obvious really. People who hijack planes, with innocents on board, are not freedom fighters. The PLO were fighting for what they believed to be the freedom of an oppressed people ergo they were freedom fighters. They employed terrorist tactics ergo they were also terrorists. There is no thin grey line, it is not an either / or situation. It's a Venn diagram with a large proportion in group A and B. the two terms mean different things. Freedom fighter refers to the cause, terrorist refers to the tactic employed Its not as clear as that though, is it. The word terrorist has negative connotations. You can legitimately use the word, but is it appropriate? It is a good question. I don't like the term freedom fighter much because it seems a bit mealy-mouthed which amounts to a denial of the actual brutal reality. But I do know that the Right love to use the word terrorist in an attempt to discredit Mandela based upon their own political assumption that no legitimate power they approve of should ever be challenged. The two terms are interchangeable but one is far more pejorative than the other. In the case of Mandela and the ANC I think the brutality of the then SA regime, whether it was the 69 murders at Sharpeville or the uncounted deaths and beatings in custody, would seem legitimate grounds for terrorism. But there is no doubting that the use of the term terrorist certainly would undermine any claim to legitimacy in the minds of the general public. I am also forced to ask myself why the suffragettes are never referred to as terrorists when their acts of arson, planting of bombs and the use of firearms, were as bad, if not worse, than anything the ANC actually did and they were not murdered when they took to the streets to demonstrate. So I find myself forced to think on a little further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Suffragettes do get refered to as terrorists There was a BBC documentary recently suggesting that they are an example of successful terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 My personal hero, for me the greatest human being that ever lived, Mohandas K. Gandhi, pursued a policy of non-violent, civil disobedience. He embodies the true meaning of the title 'freedom fighter'. I admire Ghandi immensely, but to call him a "fighter" is just wrong. Discuss... You can fight for something without employing violence. The eastern European movements that sprang up in the second half of the 20th century were fighting for freedom from communist totalitarianism, yet only in a few cases employed violence against their oppressors - Nicolae Ceausescu being a notable exception. So yes, Ghandi can legitimately be called a freedom fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Suffragettes do get refered to as terrorists There was a BBC documentary recently suggesting that they are an example of successful terrorism. Yeah, the suffragettes were the terrorist wing of the movement and the suffragists were the sort of Chartist wing. But when you read the school books they tend not to be referred to as terrorists, they are referred to as martyrs. You can see how the two sorts of suffrage protest have so much in common with the ANC's struggle. In the suffragettes you have the political martyrs in prison which demonstrated the passion and rage, and then you have the suffragists using moral force and sweet reason to persuade. Mandela made himself the symbol of martyrdom by getting himself jailed and you have Ronnie Kasrils lobbying with sweet reason in exile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Well were the IRA freedom fighters? Ol' Nelson thought so anyway 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Well were the IRA freedom fighters? Ol' Nelson thought so anyway Difference being Nelson won and didn't work for the Apartheid regime as a tout, but that's a whole other story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts