• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

If a "freedom fighter"

George2816

Emperor
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
1,230
attacks only military targets would that said "freedom fighter" be a terrorist? (Lets say that that said "freedom fighter" never killed any civilian (not counting spys or someone attempting to spy) I would like to see what other people think!
 
Probably not a terrorist. Maybe he could be called a partisan. Terrorism tends towards attacking non-combatants.
 
Nein.....................................
 
Of course not.

But they're making themselves legitimate military targets in the process.
 
Of course...I should state that the morons who suicide bomb police stations are definitely terrorists.
 
Of course...I should state that the morons who suicide bomb police stations are definitely terrorists.

To us, they are terrorists. To an extremist in a cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan, that person is a freedom fighter.
 
It depends on perspective. One man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Terrorist is a stupid term anyways, it's lost all meaning these days. However, this doesn't excuse cultural relativism. While one man's "freedom fighter" may be another man's terrorist, that doesn't mean that neither side is right or wrong.
 
Of course...I should state that the morons who suicide bomb police stations are definitely terrorists.
Well who would define who the military was? (Is it the police? The person who rats on everyone else? The person that is married to the "military" men?)
 
Terrorist is a stupid term anyways, it's lost all meaning these days. However, this doesn't excuse cultural relativism. While one man's "freedom fighter" may be another man's terrorist, that doesn't mean that neither side is right or wrong.

It has, after all, according to the Bush definition of the term, any person who fires at a US soldier is a terrorist. It is a bumper sticker slogan now, the truth of the matter is, "Terror" and everything associated with it is just not as simple as Joe Schmo Neo-Con will tell you it is.
 
It has, after all, according to the Bush definition of the term, any person who fires at a US soldier is a terrorist.

Well, yes... but...

Firing on the military is an act of war. It's pretty simple when another state does it; it's war, end of story. But individuals firing on military targets aren't acting in the interests of a state, so how does one declare war on individuals? Is it possible? What rights do those individuals have?

See, it's much easier to simply label those individuals as terrorists, as it makes for a smaller can of worms, and allows Congress to shirk its responsibility of calling a war a war.
 
To us, they are terrorists. To an extremist in a cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan, that person is a freedom fighter.
But I'm not interested in the fevered reasoning of the "true believer." The same cave-dweller might believe in many insane notions that really have no bearing on this discussion.
 
Top Bottom