Arafat's dead.

[dragonz20]

good one. I like it.

Originally Posted by genmac

I heard an Israeli diplomat on a British radio show the other day, who had an interesting reply to the above quote:

"A freedom fighter does not target civilians. There are real freedom fighters in this world, and none of them live in Palestine."

[Dhomochevsky]

Thats a stupid quote.
A freedom fighter is a fighter that fights to achieve freedom. Thats all.
How he does this and what his methods are is not important.
On the other hand this means, that freedom fighters are not "good" per definition.

Also if the palestinians are not fighting for their freedom, what are they fighting for then?

[dragonz20]

I don't think you are suppose to take that literally. If so, anyone can be a freedom fighter for any cause. Someone can take hostages and kill innocent people to force the US to free Saddam. Is this person a freedom fighter then? I don't think so considering who he's trying to rescue. Say for example Hitler didn't commit suicide and he was captured at the end of WW2. If a group of people commit vile acts of murder and mayhem in trying to rescue Hitler, are they freedom fighters as well? I think we can draw some distinctions between freedom fighters and terrorists. Because if we follow your case, every terrorists have a right to call themselves freedom fighters.

Those people who killed Margaret Hassan (director of CARE) in Iraq are NOT freedom fighters. They are terrorists but according to you, they can be classified as freedom fighters because they are supposedly fighting for the "liberation" of Iraq and would fit the criteria of "freedom" fighter. Those people are NOT freedom fighters.

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

Thats a stupid quote.
A freedom fighter is a fighter that fights to achieve freedom. Thats all.
How he does this and what his methods are is not important.
On the other hand this means, that freedom fighters are not "good" per definition.

Also if the palestinians are not fighting for their freedom, what are they fighting for then?

[Dhomochevsky]

true..
then I need to be more precise: fighting for the POLITICAL freedom [of a minotity/nation/religious group].
I think what makes the difference is, that freedom fighters dont fight for themselves or for their leader to gain power, but for people in general or some idealitsic idea.

Noone said their methods would be more acceptable, only because their goals are.

I think we can draw some distinctions between freedom fighters and terrorists. Because if we follow your case, every terrorists have a right to call themselves freedom fighters.

well, I think they actually do think of themselves as freedomfighters.
Thats excatcly what that first quote means: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

[dragonz20]

Sorry but I don't buy it. The act has to be justifiable. If the target is/are an innocent bystander(s), then they are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists. Hurtling a plane into a building full of civilians is a terrorist act. Suicide bombing a bus filled with innocent bystanders (with children) is a terrorist act. Killing Margaret Hassan is a terrorist act. These people are terrorists, not freedom fighters.

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

true..
then I need to be more precise: fighting for the POLITICAL freedom [of a minotity/nation/religious group].
I think what makes the difference is, that freedom fighters dont fight for themselves or for their leader to gain power, but for people in general or some idealitsic idea.

Noone said their methods would be more acceptable, only because their goals are.


well, I think they actually do think of themselves as freedomfighters.
Thats excatcly what that first quote means: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by dragonz20

Sorry but I don't buy it. The act has to be justifiable. If the target is/are an innocent bystander(s), then they are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists.

I think that's part of the whole issue behind that mentality though - some people will believe the ends justify the means. Some of these people may believe that by taking one life they might save many others, or that they are justified killing a Western civilian as revenge for innocents who have been killed as collateral damage (inevetable in any war, and so often extremely sloppy - we're no more effecient/less sloppy than we were 60 years ago), be it genuine accident or plain idiocy. It might also be because (although I could be very wrong/ignorant here, so I apologise if I am) attitudes towards revenge and justice might differ somewhat from culture to culture and some people may be following a 'tooth for a tooth' ideal, trying to deal out what they themselves have received. Justice is a horribly flexible, rubbery concept and being right and thinking you're right are two entirely different things.

It's not as if other people (and leaders) haven't made decisions where they've had to weigh up whether the ends justify the means, make a small sacrifice for the greater good. Perhaps that's what many of these people feel they're doing. I can only guess, because I don't think I'll ever be able to truly penetrate the mindsets, the thoughts of people who do such things.

Of course, that's providing you consider one life to be any less valuable than several, whether a sacrifice is something that can be measured so mathematically or numerically and whether every human action deserves, requires or justifies an equal or opposite reaction.

SCC