Terrorist or Freedom Fighter.

I think there will be a long, long wait before we see that, sadly.

 

If you read my post thoroughly you will see that I have said ALL WARS are morally wrong. The whataboutery you are talking about is relevent to the understanding of why people react in certain ways to certain peoples.
I too spent time in Belfast during the 1970s albeit just visiting relations who live in Ardoyne but I have a staunch republican backgound and have felt the effects of what the British occupation has done to the republican community in the North.

If the atrocities committed by the British happened only in the past then your arguement would stand up, but it didn't. It was still happening.

The British fueled the sectarian divide. Even in the Kesh the Protestant Paramilitary prisoners were treated with more respect than their republican counterparts.
This was open for all to see.

Sorry about calling you naive though, but it was just the way your post came across.

 

no worries, your a gent. We all have different experiences on this and if it was as easy to solve as we all wish, it would have been done years ago. I Terrible shame though. The Irish (and I include many in the unionist population) are such cracking people in general. JUst exceptionally nice and warm. If it wasnt for the political strife I would have to concede they are gods own people (us Scots are a bit too dour!!). I agree about the shocking manipulation of the situation by the British spooks in the war with the IRA. You should read the book 'into the darkness' by Johson Brown an ex-CID guy and what he says about special branch and their ruthless lethal use of people as pawns. No doubt about it it was a horribly dirty conflict.

 

not really we've been out breeding them for years and by 2010 there will be a catholic majority

 

Lol. I live in a totally catholic country and believe me, that's when your troubles start. :icon_mrgreen:

 

but the DUP in collusion with the spooks have secretly started flooding the catholic areas water supply and local chapel holy water fonts with oral contraceptives in a bid to keep the republican population down. There has also been an effort to get unionists to breed more by offering mothers cross medals and a free supply of goatskin to all who produce more than 3 young protestants either by traditional route or caesarian section:icon_mrgreen:.

 

I'll get the book. Thanks Keltoi. You're right about the Irish. I have some good friends from Belfast. Unionists and very warm people.

 

source?:icon_mrgreen:

 

thats when the fun will start here mate, been waiting a long time for this. we're gonna make the protestants sit at the back of the bus and drink out of seperate drinking fountains:icon_mrgreen:

 

It's a wee spring in outside Glengarriff :icon_mrgreen:

 

LOL boom boom:icon_mrgreen:

 

actually back on topic, I think there is a clue to the distinction of a freedom fighter and a terrorist in the name. Is a terrorist a person or group who control or pressurise through sheer terror and fear rather than by direct military strategy i.e. its psycological warefare but is incapable of simple conventional military victory. Classically used by politically/culturally inspired groups who are heavily underarmed compared to their opponents. Their usual justification for dragging civilians into it is that that is what causes most terror which is their main weapon. Terror basically applies to civilians not combatants. Where freedom fighters make a big effort to avoid civilian casualties they are not terrorists.

Think thats nailed it! Am proud of that. I suppose thats where people like me get repelled is the deliberate sacrifice of civilians to create terror.

 

I'll pretty much go with that.

Freedom fighters usually employ guerilla tactics seen since the days of William Wallace, the Mujhadeen, Vietcong etc...

Normally fighting against a superior foreign occuping force - early IRA also included (IMO).

Terrorists (nowadays) seem to target their aggressors in their own back yard, using tactics such as car bombings & suicide bombers - normally targetting easy or soft options, no longer military targets...cafes in Isreal, tube stations in London, train stations in Madrid (not quoting Twin towers as I'm a conspiracy theorist on that one).

This is the main difference, paraphrasing Keltoi the answers in the name:

Freedom.

Terror.

 

things have moved on though, sometimes the best way to achieve freedom for your own country is by attacking the oppressing forces in their own country. attacks in america, for example, will have more resonance for the american public than attacks in iraq

 

I don't believe that the attacks in America have anything to do with oppressed nations.

 

afghanistan? iraq? palestine?

 

^^

What about them?

 

I kind of agree. The attacks have a lot more to do with a rise in a religious strand in the middle east and worldwide, one that treats non-muslims as expendable. Attacking the west is pretty crazy as it will bring no benifit other than further military intervention against them. Afganistan is a particualr example of that. It will also cause grief to their muslims settled in the west who will be made scapegoats. Its lose-lose.

Iran was about protecting American alliance/interests in Kuwait and Saudi, not oppressed nations. The palestinains are oppressed in Israel but I think that had very little to do with the attacks on the west. If you hear why muslims hate the west its usually all about our decadent and dirty society which they see as evil. Its not usually about oppression or politics. There is a general greivance of the west but its often a rather vague hatred.