Whats the diifernse between a terrorist and a hero??

G

grizzly

Active member
What is the differense??
Some will say a hero is a good guy and a terrorist is a bad guy

Truthfully i see no differense. We look at people like Bin Laden, Saddam, and Hitler as terrorists, killers, and criminals but take the time to think not everyone beleives that.
Dont get me wrong I think they are. But do you think that the Nazis, the SS, and the SA thought that Hitler was a terrorist. No they thought that he was a hero. But the Jews and the Hitler resistance goups saw him as a murdrer.
Do you think that the reblers fighting against our brothers and sisters in uniform think saddam was a criminal. If they did we wouldn't be fighting them

Also look at Samal Adams, George Washington, and therest of the Sons of Liberty. I bet that you look at them as heros that fought of the British during the Revolutionary War. I do. What do you think that the Redcoats and the tax collectorssaw them as??? What did they think as they were being tarred and feathered??? I bet they thought that they were terrorists
fighting against the monarch.

Post your thoughts
 
I don't think there is enough bandwidth available to cover this topic fully as there has been an enormous blurring of the term "terrorist" since 9/11 you then have to reconcile things against what a rebel, freedom fighter, resistance fighter are.

Essentially the problem is that 9/11 was a terrorist attack but I am not certain the Iraq situation is a terrorist operation even though it is now being carried out by the same people (for example how do you describe the IRA terrorists or Freedom fighters, what about the French resistance during ww2, all killed soldiers and civilians alike but all perceived in very different ways).

In terms of Hitler, Hussein and the SS and the like well they are just murderers of epic proportion.

Perhaps the old addage "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is correct.
 
MontyB said:
I don't think there is enough bandwidth available to cover this topic fully as there has been an enormous blurring of the term "terrorist" since 9/11 you then have to reconcile things against what a rebel, freedom fighter, resistance fighter are.
Click to expand...

Blurring? What blurring :?: :?: The key thing that distinguishes a terrorist from any of the others, no matter who they are or what they are fighting for, are the tactics used. Terrorism is the use of force, or the threat of force, against a society or government to force or forestall change.

Terrorists deliberately target noncombatants (women, children, injured, medical and emergency personnel) and uninvolved third parties (relief workers, aid agencies, religious organizations) to get what they want. The others will not.

MontyB said:
In terms of Hitler, Hussein and the SS and the like well they are just murderers of epic proportion.
Click to expand...

You left out that they were all manically evil and were guilty of slaughtering their own people, the ones they are supposed to be protecting, as well as many others others. Add Stalin to the list and the pattern is clear :idea:

MontyB said:
Perhaps the old addage "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is correct.
Click to expand...

I most vociferously Disagree MontyB. You have a bad case of moral relativism here. :x The key is what they are trying to accomplish (how can an radical Islamic Fascist be fighting for ANYONE's freedom if they want to enslave everyone :?: ) and how they go about it.

How does the indiscriminant use of car bombs to kill and maim civilians advance the cause of freedom :?:
 
History is always written by the winners of course. Perspective is what determines who is the villian and the hero. To Americans our boys over in Iraq are heros but to islamic extremists they are the advance guard of the evil western plot to destory their way of live. To Americans our boys in Germany where liberators but to Germans at that time they where the mixed-race muts who where going to be sent back into the sea due their racial inferiority.


Through a thorough study of millitary history you will find that there are VERY VERY few wars between a truely 'good' guy and a truely 'bad' guy. Basically it comes down to the fact that your society and way of life are at odds with another groups society and way of life and war is the ultimate way these disputes are solved whether people like it or not.
 
Terrorism is the use of force, or the threat of force, against a society or government to force or forestall change.
Click to expand...

You may want to revise this statement, I would suggest being a bit clearer for example do you feel it applies in all cases or maybe it doesnt when its one nations government threatening another?.

I most vociferously Disagree MontyB. You have a bad case of moral relativism here. Mad The key is what they are trying to accomplish (how can an radical Islamic Fascist be fighting for ANYONE's freedom if they want to enslave everyone Question ) and how they go about it.
Click to expand...

Moral relativism I havent discussed right or wrong nor have I given much in the way of specifics therefore I hardly consider it moral relativism I would suggest you are jumping to conclusions.

But just for shits and giggles where does the IRA fit into your rather evangelistic defence?.
They arent Islamic, most of their funding was US supplied and many of their most wanted members were given virtual assylum in the US, they most certainly "target noncombatants (women, children, injured, medical and emergency personnel) and uninvolved third parties (relief workers, aid agencies, religious organizations) to get what they want" and lets not forget their " indiscriminant use of car bombs to kill and maim civilians advance the cause of freedom".

So I am sticking with the old addage "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" because quite simply its the less one eyed of all the statements out there.

History is always written by the winners of course. Perspective is what determines who is the villian and the hero. To Americans our boys over in Iraq are heros but to islamic extremists they are the advance guard of the evil western plot to destory their way of live. To Americans our boys in Germany where liberators but to Germans at that time they where the mixed-race muts who where going to be sent back into the sea due their racial inferiority.


Through a thorough study of millitary history you will find that there are VERY VERY few wars between a truely 'good' guy and a truely 'bad' guy. Basically it comes down to the fact that your society and way of life are at odds with another groups society and way of life and war is the ultimate way these disputes are solved whether people like it or not.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% which is why I used the one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter comment as its really determined by which side of the war you are on.
 
I feel it is important for me to interject here that one needs to be careful when engaging in such broad-level thought without propper study to back it up. As confucious says, study without intellection is vain but intellection without study is dangerous.

Without full understanding it is this kind of broad level thought that leads people to counter-productive throught (Micheal Moore) or even becomming a traitor.

Some people just jump from "what is the difference between a terrorist and a hero?" to "George Washington was a terrorist" to "America is just the new evil empire and Osama is the George Washington of the Arabs!" so quite obviously "it is the islamacists that are correct and they should be aided in their fight for freedom from the emperical American yoke!"
 
MontyB said:
But just for shits and giggles where does the IRA fit into your rather evangelistic defence?.
They arent Islamic, most of their funding was US supplied and many of their most wanted members were given virtual assylum in the US, they most certainly "target noncombatants (women, children, injured, medical and emergency personnel) and uninvolved third parties (relief workers, aid agencies, religious organizations) to get what they want" and lets not forget their " indiscriminant use of car bombs to kill and maim civilians advance the cause of freedom".
Click to expand...


PIRA -Terrorist
FARC-Terrorist
MRTA-Terrorist
Tupac Amaru -Terrorist
AUC-Terrorist
Bader-Mienhoff- Terrorist
Red Army Faction-Terrorist
Vasque-Terrorist
Sendero Luminoso-Terrorist

None of the above are Islamic. Yet their tactics make them terrorists. The targeting of nonmilitary/noncombatant/civilian targets in an effort to destabilize a goverment or society.
However the sad fact of the matter is that most groups engaged in Global terrorism are funded and manned by Islamic Fundamentalists at this point.
 
Whispering Death said:
I feel it is important for me to interject here that one needs to be careful when engaging in such broad-level thought without propper study to back it up. As confucious says, study without intellection is vain but intellection without study is dangerous.

Without full understanding it is this kind of broad level thought that leads people to counter-productive throught (Micheal Moore) or even becomming a traitor.

Some people just jump from "what is the difference between a terrorist and a hero?" to "George Washington was a terrorist" to "America is just the new evil empire and Osama is the George Washington of the Arabs!" so quite obviously "it is the islamacists that are correct and they should be aided in their fight for freedom from the emperical American yoke!"
Click to expand...

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make when I said the line between terrorist, rebel, freedom fighter is growing increasingly blurred the term "terrorist" is now being used to describe almost anything not supportive of the current regime irrespective of whether it it pro-west, east, capitalist, communist, christian, muslim or hindu.

Look at middle east from the western standpoint Hizbolah and Hamas are terrorists, from a Palestinian point of view thy are freedom fighters and the US and Israel are the terrorists. Chechenya is the same they see themselves as fighting to liberate their country Russia sees them as terrorists the definitition has now just boiled down to a one word description covering all events.
 
Whispering Death said:
Some people just jump from "what is the difference between a terrorist and a hero?" to "George Washington was a terrorist" to "America is just the new evil empire and Osama is the George Washington of the Arabs!" so quite obviously "it is the islamacists that are correct and they should be aided in their fight for freedom from the emperical American yoke!"
Click to expand...

I disagree here.

George Washighton fought against the British Army directly.

Osama Bin Laden did NOT fight the US Army directly, instead he purposely and directly targeted innocent civillians.

The definitions are clear.

Freedom Fighter = Someone who restricts their war to mainly targeting military targets or production facilities with the purpose of destroying that countries military or causing military withdrawal.

Terrorist = Someone who actively and deliberately targets civillians as a means for their politcal or startegic end, or for political shock, with no real and imidiated hampering or destruction of the military.
 
Oh, I'm with you Gladius, I'm just pointing out how jumps in logic can be made by people who have not studied this topic well enough. It's these kind of logic-gaps that lead a lot of people to do very stupid things for what they think are very smart reasons.
 
Aye,

Like a sociopath (or whatever they are called) can reason out heinous behavior, and make sound like they are doing the right thing.
 
What i was trying to get people to do was think from other points of view to what other people thought. When you think about it from other points of view what I said made sence.
Just think. There are people out there who love what Bin Laden is doing and think that he is a hero but the people that don't like him (like the US) hate him and think that he is a terrorist.
My example of the sons of liberty was logical. They did strike out and attack the third pary and in some instances civilians. They tared and feathered tax collectors and toris.
Tared and Feathered- to be dipped in boiling tar and be covered with feathers.

The whole point of this post is to have you guys look from other points of view
 
03USMC said:
PIRA -Terrorist
FARC-Terrorist
MRTA-Terrorist
Tupac Amaru -Terrorist
AUC-Terrorist
Bader-Mienhoff- Terrorist
Red Army Faction-Terrorist
Vasque-Terrorist
Sendero Luminoso-Terrorist

quote]


Just a precision, not all vasques are terrorist, just the members of ETA and the people that supports them
Click to expand...
 
grizzly said:
What i was trying to get people to do was think from other points of view to what other people thought. When you think about it from other points of view what I said made sence.
Just think. There are people out there who love what Bin Laden is doing and think that he is a hero but the people that don't like him (like the US) hate him and think that he is a terrorist.
My example of the sons of liberty was logical. They did strike out and attack the third pary and in some instances civilians. They tared and feathered tax collectors and toris.
Tared and Feathered- to be dipped in boiling tar and be covered with feathers.

The whole point of this post is to have you guys look from other points of view
Click to expand...

Little bit of a difference between tarring and feathering tax collectors and slaughtering 3500 civilians in one day.


Now if you want to engage in a meta-relativistic conversation then I'd say that even there taring and feathering blatantly fails a comparison to slaughtering 3500 civilians. Taring and feathering had the principle purpose of humiliating an offender so as to force him into exile, the idea was to make him leave and never return, not to kill him. The process had a long history as a lawful method of punnishment dating back to the mid 1100s I believe and was a frequent means on the American frontier to do away with criminals, therefore this legal and often-used method was naturally applied to enemies of the rebellion. It was not until the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punnishment did it become wrong. Contrast this with flying planes into civilian buildings, there is a LONG standing prohibition on the purposeful killing of civilians during wartime, it is looked on as patontly wrong. So relativistically, in their time period tarring and feathering a supporter of the enemy was looked on as a normal outgrowth and meant for exile, not death. In our time period, executing one civilian just going about their life is looked on as an atrocity and killing 3500 is an incomprehensible evil. If you still have any doubt how about you ask yourself whether you'd rather be tarred and featherd for public himiliation and exile or immolated by jet fuel in your office?

Comparing George Washington to Osama Bin Laddin is just as I said previously, the outgrowth of intellection without propper study, in short, people who think they are smart but in actuallity are quite ignorant.
 
Most people realize that freedom fighters, guerillas, or any underground force is necessary if the odds against them are overwhelming. The French Resistance and those like them in other countries gave their lives to support the allied forces. Terrorism is a tool used to make a psychological impact on enemies too powerful to defeat in open battle. It has been used by man against man since the beginning of time. If an army is marching on a road lined by impaled human heads, it gets nervous, when it gets nervous, it makes mistakes.

In the American Civil War, the most dreaded result of the South losing would have been for Lee to take his forces into guerilla warfare. Grant knew that the war would never end if that happened so he gave the South concessions that were unpopular in the North.
 
The prespective he/she is put in. The English called the "indians" that had the Boston Tea Party terrorists, but we called them heroes.
 
Yeah dumping a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor was real terrorism.

I really don't have much to add here. Gunner13 said everything I would've already. So just let me add my voice to his.
 
Charge 7 said:
Yeah dumping a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor was real terrorism.

I really don't have much to add here. Gunner13 said everything I would've already. So just let me add my voice to his.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the tea, it was the statement an economical issues.
 
To me the key difference is women and children. Terrorists make no distinctions between combatants and civilians, they view them all as the enemy and try to kill them all, including women and children. Heroes on the other hand only try to kill enemy combatants, they might not treat women and children as equals, but they do not treat them as targets either.

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.
 
Desert_Eagle said:
It wasn't the tea, it was the statement an economical issues.
Click to expand...

But how was that Terrorism? You are still missing the point.


Speaking of points:

MontyB - Yes, I do consider the IRA or the PIRA, as 03USMC mentions, as terrorists. The fit the definition most precisely and where their support comes from is irrelevant.

The line between terrorist, rebel, freedom fighter is NOT growing increasingly blurred. Reread my definition and remember that deliberately targeting innocents, noncombatants and third parties when you have an abundance of other options, quite clearly, IS terrorism (see Gladius' or Damien435's definitions if you don't like mine).

How does the US, or Israel, fit this definition?

"Looking at things from Hizbolah and Hamas points of view" and "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" sure is moral relativism. You do not have to mention right or wrong as you are seeking to place them on the same moral plane with everyone else and if that is not relativism, I do not know what is.

grizzly - tarring and feathering a tax collector, who is a government agent, while harsh, even by the standards of the time, is not terrorism. People can love Bin Laden all they want, but that doesn't change what he is doing or how he is doing it.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top