Whats the diifernse between a terrorist and a hero?? - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
May 14th, 2005  
Gunner13
 
 
Understood and I did understand the first time as you were clear enough (I think). I am not convinced that other people grasp this though.
May 14th, 2005  
grizzly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
Understood and I did understand the first time as you were clear enough (I think). I am not convinced that other people grasp this though.
Who are you talking to.??????
May 14th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13

Damien435 "In the end it comes down to one thing, history is written by the victors and they decide who is a hero and who is a terrorist."

If this is true, why do we revise history as we find out more or try to reinterpret it? This is an old adage that simply does not stand up, particularly in recent times. The losers do get a voice and do get into the history books or else we would never be having this discussion.
Only because we allow them to. Today the SS are considered some of the worst terrorists in the history of the world, do you think that would be the case if Germany had won the war? Granted this is just one ignorant American saying this but I don't think Hitler would have allowed the soldiers of the SS to be viewed as anything other than heroes and I bet his successors would have done the same thing. But we were victorious and because we believe in this thing called freedom of speech we allow history to be re-evaluated and re-written (so to say).
--
Boots
May 14th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
Its only more recently in history that the the losers acts are recorded accuratly. I wonder how much of the history passed down from the egyptians, romans, greeks etc. is true and has not been edited by historians or writers
May 15th, 2005  
Gunner13
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
Understood and I did understand the first time as you were clear enough (I think). I am not convinced that other people grasp this though.
Who are you talking to.??????
MontyB primarily. We are having discussions on several topics and while my response was right after his post, the page break separated them - sorry for the loss of continuity.
May 15th, 2005  
grizzly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
MontyB primarily. We are having discussions on several topics and while my response was right after his post, the page break separated them - sorry for the loss of continuity.
Don't Worry about it Gunner

Damien435 You make a very good point. If the Nazis had won WWII The SS and SA would not have the same views as they do today.
They and Hitler would be viewd as Heros of Germany, and Hitler and the other Nazis would have made sur of it.
May 16th, 2005  
Locke
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

can't see why it's a disputed article though....?
it is a disputed issue because history is always written by the victors and very rarely does it document from the loosing side. there may be two causes but in the end, despite how well people fought on both sides and how honorable (or not) they were, one side will always be tagged as terrorists or loosers.

few people are objective enough to say "yes that person was a good and worth opponent, they fought well" because this does not conform to sterotypes and it is much easier just to hate someone than to consider thier humanity
May 17th, 2005  
Gunner13
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
there may be two causes but in the end, despite how well people fought on both sides and how honorable (or not) they were, one side will always be tagged as terrorists or loosers. few people are objective enough to say "yes that person was a good and worth opponent, they fought well" because this does not conform to sterotypes and it is much easier just to hate someone than to consider thier humanity
This is the exception, not the rule.

Although conflict has become increasingly bitter and more polarized in the last 60 years, it is still possible for nation states or groups to fight hard, but well, and emerge as a loosing side but not be seen as terrorists.

For example, neither Great Britain or Argentina would be considered terrorists after the Falklands War, nor do I consider the defeated Iraqi Army to have been a group of terrorists. They fought for a corrupt and worthless regime that was controlled by thugs and were associated with terrorist elements (e.g. the fedaeen), but the majority of the Iraqi Army did not conduct themselves that way.
May 17th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
MontyB primarily. We are having discussions on several topics and while my response was right after his post, the page break separated them - sorry for the loss of continuity.
Don't Worry about it Gunner

Damien435 You make a very good point. If the Nazis had won WWII The SS and SA would not have the same views as they do today.
They and Hitler would be viewd as Heros of Germany, and Hitler and the other Nazis would have made sur of it.
I wouldnt put money on that as the SA wasnt particually liked by either Hitler nor the SS (who saw them as rivals) also I dont think anyone sees the SS or Hitler as "terrorists" but instead mass murderers (I would also refine this statement to include only some elements of the SS and not all).
May 17th, 2005  
grizzly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I wouldnt put money on that as the SA wasnt particually liked by either Hitler nor the SS (who saw them as rivals) also I dont think anyone sees the SS or Hitler as "terrorists" but instead mass murderers (I would also refine this statement to include only some elements of the SS and not all).
I was just talking in a general term MontyB.