Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which category do these people belong in: Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Gerry Adams, Martin Luther King, Osama bin Ladin, George Bush Junior, Tony Blair?

http://www.digitalproductionme.com/pictures/gaddafi.jpg

one person's is another person's .

Originally posted by inimalist
one person's is another person's .

It's all about definitions and pedagogy.

So....define them...

Originally posted by Michael Collins
It's all about definitions and pedagogy.

thats my point

without a clear definition of either term, they are indistinguishable by definition. the point is moot, because you could literally make up terms:

one man's flabastamin is another man's crubapalos

Originally posted by inimalist
thats my point

without a clear definition of either term, they are indistinguishable by definition. the point is moot, because you could literally make up terms:

one man's flabastamin is another man's crubapalos

That's the point of the title with the exception of perspective and emotional input and passion. Causes are most emotive to those closest to them.

http://www.newsofap.com/newsofap-24404-26-spain-basque-separatists-eta-to-put-down-arms-permanently-newsofap.html

I don't see how terrorism and fighting for freedom are mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see how terrorism and fighting for freedom are mutually exclusive.

hmm Good point.

However the issue is more one of connotation than denotation.

Michael Collins was one of Liam Neeson's finest performances.

There is no one on the planet who could label Martin Luther the King a terrorist, there is no way to spin the definition of the term that would make it include him.

Originally posted by Juk3n
There is no one on the planet who could label Martin Luther the King a terrorist, there is no way to spin the definition of the term that would make it include him.

My grandfather fought hard to keep America racially segregated, just as it had been since it was founded. The militant marches of "Doctor" MLK spread unrimittant terror through him and his friends.

Hence terrorist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My grandfather fought hard to keep America racially segregated, just as it had been since it was founded. The militant marches of "Doctor" MLK spread unrimittant terror through him and his friends.

Hence terrorist.

The fact that people were terrified from a man walking in the street doesn't make the man walking a terrorist. People have phobias of balloons, that doesn't make a balloon an instrument of horror. MLK himself commited no single action that could be thought of as an act of purposefully instilling terror on a populus.

Originally posted by Juk3n
There is no one on the planet who could label Martin Luther the King a terrorist, there is no way to spin the definition of the term that would make it include him. I'm sure there's some very eloquent Imperial Wizards out there who could pull it off.

1: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
2: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
3: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
4: Killed people and/or planned to kill people (terrorist)
5: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
6: Killed people and/or planned to kill people (terrorist)
7: Didn't kill anyone but entered a nation into a war (not terrorist)
8: Didn't kill anyone but entered a nation into a war (not terrorist)

Easy.

Originally posted by Juk3n
The fact that people were terrified from a man walking in the street doesn't make the man walking a terrorist

except that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorist

Originally posted by inimalist
except that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorist

Do does that mean there's no distinction between the people in the list?...Of course not...Some were peaceful protesters who had their nations brand them as terrorists and perpetrated violence against them.

Others planned and executed the killings others...Seems an easy distinction to make.

Originally posted by Michael Collins
That's the point of the title with the exception of perspective and emotional input and passion. Causes are most emotive to those closest to them.

http://www.newsofap.com/newsofap-24404-26-spain-basque-separatists-eta-to-put-down-arms-permanently-newsofap.html

the problem with that stance is that there are ways to define "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" (even, as Bardock pointed out, in ways that they are not mutually exclusive), whereas your position rests on the fact that these terms can never have meaningful distinctions. It says more about the subjectivity of language than about anything political or sociological.

also, I'd point out, there are much better terms to use if one wants to have a meaningful discussion about the motivations, actions and ethics behind various types of violence or social movements. For instance, while I could reasonably argue that both GW and OBL are either "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", things like asymmetric warfare vs air superiority, or budgets for weapons, etc, provide much better descriptions of either man's military force.

If all you are trying to say is that politicians will use language that makes their side look best... cool... but I don't see much to discuss on that point.

Originally posted by jaden101
Do does that mean there's no distinction between the people in the list?...Of course not...Some were peaceful protesters who had their nations brand them as terrorists and perpetrated violence against them.

Others planned and executed the killings others...Seems an easy distinction to make.

see the post directly under yours

my general response would be, why even use such nonsense terms anyways, unless as shorthand?

Originally posted by Juk3n
The fact that people were terrified from a man walking in the street doesn't make the man walking a terrorist. People have phobias of balloons, that doesn't make a balloon an instrument of horror. MLK himself commited no single action that could be thought of as an act of purposefully instilling terror on a populus.

He threatened to destroy the world as they knew it Terrorist.

Is he really a freedom FIGHTER either though? MLK seems more like a freedom firmprotestor to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He threatened to destroy the world as they knew it Terrorist.

Exactly. I believe terrorism to be culturally and temporally relativistic. Today's terrorist is tomorrows world leader. It only takes a shift in paradigm.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist crosses when one intentionally attacks innocent civilians, IMO anyways

Originally posted by Lestov16
The line between freedom fighter and terrorist crosses when one intentionally attacks innocent civilians, IMO anyways

Like when Iraqi women are raped by foreign soldiers.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The line between freedom fighter and terrorist crosses when one intentionally attacks innocent civilians, IMO anyways

Who is innocent? Who is a civilian? Right wing conspiracy thought holds that "suits" barely count as human, by being associated with the government at all you become fair game. It's not exactly a new or uncommon mentality. All through the course of quotable history people have complained that inaction by ordinary people props up oppressors. What about the medic saving the life of your enemy?

The real world also has indirect involvement at many levels. Take a mercenary as an example. Do we shoot him? Maybe, but someone hired him. Do we shoot that person? Maybe, but his money came from somewhere. Do we shoot those people? Punish all of them?

What is an attack? Violence counts, obviously, but what about harassment or disrupting their food supply? Damage to infrastructure will case harm later on, so is there an acceptable limit for freedom fighter to cause?

How do you establish intent? After all, no one describes themselves as deliberately attacking civilians, mostly their enemies do. Israel and Palestine, for example, both say that civilian deaths they cause are just collateral damage and that the other side is doing it intentionally.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who is innocent? Who is a civilian? Right wing conspiracy thought holds that "suits" barely count as human, by being associated with the government at all you become fair game. It's not exactly a new or uncommon mentality. All through the course of quotable history people have complained that inaction by ordinary people props up oppressors. What about the medic saving the life of your enemy?

The real world also has indirect involvement at many levels. Take a mercenary as an example. Do we shoot him? Maybe, but someone hired him. Do we shoot that person? Maybe, but his money came from somewhere. Do we shoot those people? Punish all of them?

What is an attack? Violence counts, obviously, but what about harassment or disrupting their food supply? Damage to infrastructure will case harm later on, so is there an acceptable limit for freedom fighter to cause?

How do you establish intent? After all, no one describes themselves as deliberately attacking civilians, mostly their enemies do. Israel and Palestine, for example, both say that civilian deaths they cause are just collateral damage and that the other side is doing it intentionally.

Good post.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who is innocent? Who is a civilian? Right wing conspiracy thought holds that "suits" barely count as human, by being associated with the government at all you become fair game. It's not exactly a new or uncommon mentality. All through the course of quotable history people have complained that inaction by ordinary people props up oppressors. What about the medic saving the life of your enemy?

The real world also has indirect involvement at many levels. Take a mercenary as an example. Do we shoot him? Maybe, but someone hired him. Do we shoot that person? Maybe, but his money came from somewhere. Do we shoot those people? Punish all of them?

What is an attack? Violence counts, obviously, but what about harassment or disrupting their food supply? Damage to infrastructure will case harm later on, so is there an acceptable limit for freedom fighter to cause?

How do you establish intent? After all, no one describes themselves as deliberately attacking civilians, mostly their enemies do. Israel and Palestine, for example, both say that civilian deaths they cause are just collateral damage and that the other side is doing it intentionally.

there is also the fact that, while it might be true that no army in history has tried harder to minimize civilian deaths than NATO (I don't necessarily agree, but for the sake of argument), its not hard to argue that they do intentionally kill civilians. At the very least, they have some type of "moral calculus" where civilian lives are weighed against tactical goals, and considered "expandable".

though, there are more than enough instances where it can be shown NATO armies have directly attacked civilians.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is also the fact that, while it might be true that no army in history has tried harder to minimize civilian deaths than NATO (I don't necessarily agree, but for the sake of argument), its not hard to argue that they do intentionally kill civilians. At the very least, they have some type of "moral calculus" where civilian lives are weighed against tactical goals, and considered "expandable".

though, there are more than enough instances where it can be shown NATO armies have directly attacked civilians.

The NATO Libya war that may just break the record for the casual breaking of international law, and lying about the motives for the war. There is no mandate to engage in "regime change" yet everyone, including NATO, openly admit that that is, in fact, what they are doing.

No one refers to this war against Libya as a criminal conspiracy but the term would be perfectly appropriate. And I suppose we should not be surprised that an organization that constantly violates its own mandate can hardly be expected to wince at violating someone else's they have taken over. NATO, with almost no comment from anywhere, has become a military intervention agency aimed at protecting Western industrial nations -- not from military threat but from an economic one: the threat of higher oil prices and the gradual loss of its dominant access to Middle East oil and gas.

There seems to be so little public interest in this war that its perpetrators lie like six year olds next to the cookie jar because so far they have largely gotten away with it. As the war was quickly transformed from protecting civilians to getting the evil Gadhafi, western governments thought all they had to do was show photos of Colonel Gadhafi looking demented or tell stories about his eccentric behaviour in order to pacify their populationsThe constant talk of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" seem equally opportunistic and just a bit too predictable -- NATO cover fire for its blatant violation of international law and the UN mandate and its own killing of civilians (inevitable in an air war). The charges of rape being used systematically as a weapon of war so far has no credible evidence that the UN can agree on and reminds me of the gruesome tearing-babies-from-incubators story that was created by public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to sell the first Iraq war to the U.S.

Originally posted by Lulz Lizard
The NATO Libya war that may just break the record for the casual breaking of international law, and lying about the motives for the war. There is no mandate to engage in "regime change" yet everyone, including NATO, openly admit that that is, in fact, what they are doing.

No one refers to this war against Libya as a criminal conspiracy but the term would be perfectly appropriate. And I suppose we should not be surprised that an organization that constantly violates its own mandate can hardly be expected to wince at violating someone else's they have taken over. NATO, with almost no comment from anywhere, has become a military intervention agency aimed at protecting Western industrial nations -- not from military threat but from an economic one: the threat of higher oil prices and the gradual loss of its dominant access to Middle East oil and gas.

There seems to be so little public interest in this war that its perpetrators lie like six year olds next to the cookie jar because so far they have largely gotten away with it. As the war was quickly transformed from protecting civilians to getting the evil Gadhafi, western governments thought all they had to do was show photos of Colonel Gadhafi looking demented or tell stories about his eccentric behaviour in order to pacify their populationsThe constant talk of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" seem equally opportunistic and just a bit too predictable -- NATO cover fire for its blatant violation of international law and the UN mandate and its own killing of civilians (inevitable in an air war). The charges of rape being used systematically as a weapon of war so far has no credible evidence that the UN can agree on and reminds me of the gruesome tearing-babies-from-incubators story that was created by public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to sell the first Iraq war to the U.S.

There is actually considerable opposition to the war on legal grounds among the American public and sectors of both houses of American government. There have been a couple of instances now where the establishment of both parties has had to team up to prevent challenges from congress, though I believe even now, some senators are suing the whitehouse over waging an illegal war.

Greenwald has talked frequently about the issue, and Salon has constant articles about the illegality of the war otherwise

George Washington and crew were considered terrorist once, or to be like terrorist. Just a matter of opinion, really.

Though I do think intent matters and factors in. If a school is destroyed during a military strike cos it's close to a military target and 50 children are killed, that unfortunately is another disgusting facet of war. If a school is destroyed and 50 children are killed because someone wanted to just kill children as a means to break their enemies resolve, that's more like "terrorism" to me than warfare.

I'd personally be happy to have a 1v1 duel and have our leaders face-off to settle issues. Let them lose and eye.

Originally posted by Robtard
George Washington and crew were considered terrorist once, or to be like terrorist. Just a matter of opinion, really.

Though I do think intent matters and factors in. If a school is destroyed during a military strike cos it's close to a military target and 50 children are killed, that unfortunately is another disgusting facet of war. If a school is destroyed and 50 children are killed because someone wanted to just kill children as a means to break their enemies resolve, that's more like "terrorism" to me than warfare.

I'd personally be happy to have a 1v1 duel and have our leaders face-off to settle issues. Let them lose and eye.


So if Bin Laden were alive, Obama vs Bi Laden? One hour prep for each, h2h combat on the white house lawn?

Originally posted by inimalist
there is also the fact that, while it might be true that no army in history has tried harder to minimize civilian deaths than NATO (I don't necessarily agree, but for the sake of argument), its not hard to argue that they do intentionally kill civilians. At the very least, they have some type of "moral calculus" where civilian lives are weighed against tactical goals, and considered "expandable".

though, there are more than enough instances where it can be shown NATO armies have directly attacked civilians.

That has been tactical doctrine for a long time. The most extreme was "total war" which noted that the enemy army couldn't exist without production capacity and production capacity could exist without... you see where this ends (or rather doesn't). A less crazy version was used by the Allies in WWII, see Dresden and Hiroshima, industrial targets rather than military ones.

However there's a distinction, perhaps a small one, between "intentionally" and "knowingly". NATO takes actions they know will kill innocent people but they don't go out of their way to use those tactics.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That has been tactical doctrine for a long time. The most extreme was "total war" which noted that the enemy army couldn't exist without production capacity and production capacity could exist without... you see where this ends (or rather doesn't). A less crazy version was used by the Allies in WWII, see Dresden and Hiroshima, industrial targets rather than military ones.

However there's a distinction, perhaps a small one, between "intentionally" and "knowingly". NATO takes actions they know will kill innocent people but they don't go out of their way to use those tactics.

I can point to situations where it is clear NATO did intentionally target civilians for that specific purpose (Palestine Hotel incident is the one that comes to mind first). There are some psyops incidents that seem to do the same, only with the "targeting" being with a psychological type of violence than physical, but I get your point.

I suppose I'm in the fortunate position of not having to distinguish morally between killing innocent people as a consequence or as a purpose. For instance, Israel will target Hamas officials (in the instance I'm thinking of, it was the elected minister of education) living in apartment buildings, with no regard for the people living in the building. I don't actually know how to differentiate that from just attacking the building for the purpose of attacking the building. I understand there may be different motivations, but that seems like a "means justify the ends" type of situation.

and, I was actually going to bring up targeting civilian infrastructure that is used by armies as another grey zone

It seems to me that terrorists are the people who harass innocents AND contradict the definers beliefs. Freedom fighters harass innocents but are in accordance with the definers beliefs. So the distinction between the two is very relative of course.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can point to situations where it is clear NATO did intentionally target civilians for that specific purpose (Palestine Hotel incident is the one that comes to mind first). There are some psyops incidents that seem to do the same, only with the "targeting" being with a psychological type of violence than physical, but I get your point.

I hadn't heard about the Palestine Hotel incident. I mentioned this before in the thread that determining intent is strongly dependent on who you believe. Everyone knew there were journalists inside but did someone in NATO really have a good motive to kill one random group of them? Maybe. The only impartial judge involved seemed to think so.

Psyops are interesting morally. It's an attack, in fact the whole point is often to produce terror, yet if/when they work lives are saved on all sides.

Originally posted by inimalist
I suppose I'm in the fortunate position of not having to distinguish morally between killing innocent people as a consequence or as a purpose. For instance, Israel will target Hamas officials (in the instance I'm thinking of, it was the elected minister of education) living in apartment buildings, with no regard for the people living in the building. I don't actually know how to differentiate that from just attacking the building for the purpose of attacking the building. I understand there may be different motivations, but that seems like a "means justify the ends" type of situation.

The ends often do justify the means, it's just not an automatic justification like people often want it to be. I really don't know what to make of Israel and Hamas.

I don't approve of the relativism point thats being tossed around in here. You can apply that stance to literally any discussion regardless of the topic and it'll be valid.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't approve of the relativism point thats being tossed around in here. You can apply that stance to literally any discussion regardless of the topic and it'll be valid.

You don't believe that people have different beliefs?

I don't believe "Everything is relative nyaaaah" is conducive to having a good discussion.

edit- I'm aware that its a misrepresentation of what you've been saying, jerk.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't believe "Everything is relative nyaaaah" is conducive to having a good discussion.

Who has said that?

If you have the one, true, objective, and enlightened answer to who is terrorist and who is a freedom fighter, please share.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
edit- I'm aware that its a misrepresentation of what you've been saying, jerk.



I don't think its any kind of representation of what people have been saying. The issue is one of cutural relevtavism and individuality (ie "people disagree on things", moral subjectivism doesn't seem to have come up.

There's no such thing as an objective definition.

But, the most general consensus on what the term means is a person who uses terror, or fear, to achieve some kind of goal.

Freedom fighter is a term, it's not a word. It doesn't have a definition.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Going by the keyword terror, I'd argue that a terrorist is someone who uses terror, or fear, to achieve some kind of goal.

Yes, we got past this on the first page. That is the denotation of terrorism. Duh.

In real life connotation is a huge part of language (except Lojban, I guess). If I say that your mother is "built like a Mac Truck" you know that I'm saying that she is broad shouldered, not made of riveted steel.

Terrorist and Freedom Fighter are simply words standing in for "good guy" and "bad guy" in a practical context that a modern person has a point of reference too. The purpose of the original quote is to make people think about why we hate the one guy with a gun fighting for his god and country but love the other guy with a gun fighting for god and country.


Of course objectivists (and Objectivists) do tend to think they have the one, true, objective, and enlightened answer to what is good and what is bad.

stfu

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I hadn't heard about the Palestine Hotel incident. I mentioned this before in the thread that determining intent is strongly dependent on who you believe. Everyone knew there were journalists inside but did someone in NATO really have a good motive to kill one random group of them? Maybe. The only impartial judge involved seemed to think so.

I tend to think the motivation was more about dissuading other journalists rather than targeting those in the hotel, but I don't know how important that distinction is

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Psyops are interesting morally. It's an attack, in fact the whole point is often to produce terror, yet if/when they work lives are saved on all sides.

I'm not trying to take a shot at all psyops, however, when you have professional APA psychologists informing your torture program, there are probably reasons to say this is "terrorism". Also, there are reports that early American psyops in Afghanistan included mutilating the bodies of soldiers and putting them on hillsides to try and prevent villagers from joining the Taliban. All I'm really saying is that psyops opens other avenues to think about what constitutes "terror" in "innocent civilians". Obviously, effective psyops that follows general moral codes is a good thing, especially when compared to straight out combat.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The ends often do justify the means, it's just not an automatic justification like people often want it to be.

sure, and anything can be phrased in that way, for instance, buying some chips and salsa today justified the effort it took to walk to the store. The end totally justified the means.

I think my point is the same as yours, "fighting terrorism" isn't a carte blanche the kill all the civilians you want

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I really don't know what to make of Israel and Hamas.

no, totally, thats a whole other thing. But the specific situation I brought up does sort of get at what I was saying earlier in the thread. It is really irrelevant, imho, whether we can call what Israel or Hamas does "terrorism", when the end result is a building full of people are dead, as a result of an attack that targeted a democratically elected official.

I, personally, don't think there are too many ways to spin that situation (I can name similar incidents by Palestinian militants if you need me to seem more "fair and balanced". It is wrong, whether it is terrorism or violence in the name of freedom. Such titles are meaningless if all they do is serve the powers that be in their ability to cause damage to innocent people. What a terrorist is seems like the most inconsequential question ever, when the actual moral impact of terrorists and freedom fighters is essentially the same.

Originally posted by jaden101
2: Didn't kill anyone or plan to kill anyone (not terrorist)
Didn't Nelson Mandela lead an armed anti-apartheid effort and coordinate plans for guerilla warfare? Genuine question, as that's what I believed but I can't claim to have done a lot of research.