Freedom fighters, or terrorists?

In the news, Chechnyan rebels are often described as just that: rebels, or freedom fighters, when they actually fit the description of terrorists. They take hostages and go on suicide bombings too, so are they not terrorists?

Also, IRA "freedom fighters" get the same deal.

It seems Arabs are the only ones considered terrorists.

This may also bring up the subject "What is a terrorist?" You could consider George W. a terrorist for trying to scare everyone into a war with Iraq, no?

A terrorist is someone that uses terror as a way of fighting back. They don't have to win the whole war, but as long as they scare everyone, then they win. Yet, we think that all of the people we are fighting are terrorist. Which is wrong, we are fighting another nation. A rebelion is not a terrorist group, because they are trying to fight for a change in government, not to scare people. So it is wrong to say that anyone that fights as a rebel is a terrorist.

Charles Manson? PLO? they were terrorist, and they were white.

I'll agree that some terrorist organizations are called such things that they aren't. But, we don't just lable the muslims. We do lable the groups in the Congo, and Latin America as terrorist too.

I have a feeling that with the new terrorism craze we have changed the meaning of terrorist. They have started to define it to major threats against NATO countries(of course mainly the US) but the threat can't be a rebellion.

Such groups like the IRA are actually rebellions that we don't notice. And it is actually funny that the British and Americans will fight for others freedom, unless it occurs in their own countries.

Yes, because they are the newest terrorist. The other groups of terrorists haven't done anything yet. If I were to say murders, you'd think of recent ones in the news, then you would think of the older ones.

It's all politics. Rebels we're impartial to or we support are just rebels or freedom fighters. The ones we don't like are terrorists. Bin Laden was a rebel when he fought against the Soviets in the 80s. Now that we're moving in on the Middle Eastern oil supply, everyone that opposes us is a terrorist (or "evil-doer"... *L* ... that shit cracks me up).

Only some films not all. I can name some films that don't have muslim terrorists.

Also I can name some games that don't have muslim terrorists.

Even though, films and games are still based on current events. And I have evidence of that.

First of all, sorry I haven't been involved in this conversation I think I must've forgotten to turn E-mail notification on.

Anyway, Decius is right in that I was trying to make a point about how the word terrorist is practically synonymous with the word Muslim in America these days.

What I was also trying to bring up is the fact that there are other terrorists, right here at home, who don't threaten to hurt anyone, but might scare someone into doing what they want, which is what I meant with the George W. comment.

I also was talking about how the Chechnyans never receive repsonsibility for attacking innocent Russian civilians. You may remember the whole attack by Chechnyans on a theater in Moscow, or more recently, a suicide bombing on a bus. Not only are the Chechnyans terrorists on their own, but it has been known that they are influenced and working with the Muslim fanatics who Americans know as the only terrorists.

I do agree with Dugbug when he says that some films and video games do not have Muslim terrorists, although it's a little off the point. You will notice that many movies (mostly action)from just a few years ago often at Eastern European terrorists (i.e. Air Force One).

Ok, hopefully I cleared a few things up, and I am now turning on E-mail notification

Even if it has been for the past 10 years. Wouldn't it still have to do with current events/dramatics? Like, Wouldn't it only be that we think about muslims because we forgot about the other guy? And wouldn't that be because they haven't done anything recent?

Just tell, if a group from the Congo or from South America attack a country big time, wouldn't we start noticing them?

OOOOOOOOHHH!!! I SEE NOW!!

You should of told me from the start, then I would of understood. You aren't talking to highly intellegent people.


I usually talk to my friends who for the most part are smarter then me, so I am used to only hearing intellectual responces.

But if people think that Timothy was a Muslim I think we have worse problems then that. Maybe better education.

You never said most people. I think the only time you came close is when you said 9 out of 10.

I thought by what you typed you were saying that all of us thought that way. I was just making sure you understood that all of us don't think that way.

Then why are you? I was just stating a misunderstand because from past post I read that you wrote you one said something along the lines that people don't read everything you say and use it. Well, I did just that and I took it for what it is meant.

Now do I know you? No, I haven't read your work long enough to actually understand you. So how am I to know that you are a man that exagerates. Now, I know a lot of people that hate exageration because it isn't a real fact. These people are Intellegent so it isn't safe to say that just because I think you are very intellegent doesn't mean I think you are an exagerater.

I understand that people exagerate, I do it myself. But, to tell you the truth, I thought you were smarter then that. I thought you were the type of guy that would make sure he used the right words. Obviously I am wrong.

I am sorry for making that judgment. But I thought you were smarter then that, I thought you were the type of person, like I, that wouldn't argue to win, or to show that they are right, but would argue to come to an agreement on the exactly right answer to the question. For example, The US Declaration of Independence was argued for 2 days on exactly how it was to be worded so that it would make a perfect document.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back on subject, I still find my idea alive. My idea is actually supported by the fact that most people are stupid. People that don't speak freely and are followers listen to the news and believe it. They don't think by themselves. So when the news states something they talk about it. The news states current events, so people will only understand what is going on now. And sense their minds are small, they don't try and get all the information on something, they don't retain the info that long. So after a while they forget key parts of the past. The reason people don't remember the Oklahoma Bombing is because it is so long ago, and their minds are too bad to remember it.

If America gets attacked by some other terrorist group that isn't muslim, we will start to talk about them. Of course, since the muslim incident is still fresh, we will connect the two and then keep them both in mind together.

I am not going to say that the news helps them. The news won't say, hey, there are other terrorist out there that aren't muslims. But if those terrorist do something that will attract the people, then the news will cover them.

I thought I had cleared things up...huh? I think we were a little off track there for a bit.

Perhaps you have failed to read my post 1 post ago

"The reason people don't remember the Oklahoma Bombing is because it is so long ago, and their minds are too bad to remember it. "

Ok, I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of arguing/discussing what others are thinking. I don't know why I am even doing it, I could careless what others think, I'll let them defend themselves. Sorry for posting so much about them, it was stupid of me.

"the government isn't doing much to change the way they are perceived."

To tell you the truth I was going to say the same thing about the media, but I thought it was irrelavent(I don't know why).

You have to agree though, when Oklahoma happened many people didn't know what terrorism was. And I agree that people just listen to anyone.

But, after re-reading the posts for my 5th time trying to make sure I wasn't the one that was making a mistake, I noticed Danipog's real original question.

"What is a terrorist?" You could consider George W. a terrorist for trying to scare everyone into a war with Iraq, no?

I would like to also discuss this. Which group do we (and when I say we, I mean people in the forum) consider as terrorists? Which groups?

To me I think that a terrorist is someone that tries to prove a point the wrong way through destruction but doesn't set any goals to obtain.

I don't think that most of the terrorist are terrorist.

(And I admit that before I wasn't taking in the idealism before and was instead trying to find logic.)

Definatly shouldn't go for civilians. Actually I would try and recruit them, not kill them.

But, I am not to fond of suicide bombers. I mean, if you want to kill yourself fine, go ahead. But, I like the old WWII tactics.