Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 You could accurately, and more appropriately call him a freedom fighter. I do have a hang up about the misappropriation of the word terrorist, it does him disservice, I feel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.So which side of the fence do you come down on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2013 You could accurately, and more appropriately call him a freedom fighter. I do have a hang up about the misappropriation of the word terrorist, it does him disservice, I feel. It's not a misappropriation. Terrorism is a methodology - a tactic, a way of getting what you want to happen. Freedom fighters are often terrorists - we just feel that they have valid/just aims and, flinching from the valid description of them as terrorists, we use a term we feel more comfortable with. Mandela was a freedom fighter. He was also a terrorist. He chose to use a terrorist methodology to fight the South African regime of the time. I don't think you should flinch from calling him what he was. You can take the edge off and feel more comfortable calling him a freedom fighter as well, but he was a terrorist. That doesn't take anything away from what he achieved afterwards, which was utterly laudable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 I don't think you should flinch from calling him what he was. You can take the edge off and feel more comfortable calling him a freedom fighter as well, but he was a terrorist. That doesn't take anything away from what he achieved afterwards, which was utterly laudable. It's an interesting timeline really, from terrorist, to jail, to globally respected national leader. Seems Michael Howard was right, prison works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Yes, by strict definition, he was a freedom fighter, and a terrorist. But language is flexible, it's not rigid, words have connotations. If you flatly disagree with his methods and aims he was a terrorist. If you have compassion, and empathy and hurt for lives unintentionally lost, for then he was a freedom fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2013 Yes, by strict definition, he was a freedom fighter, and a terrorist. But language is flexible, it's not rigid, words have connotations. If you flatly disagree with his methods and aims he was a terrorist. If you have compassion, and empathy and hurt for lives unintentionally lost, for then he was a freedom fighter. Not quite. If you know what 'terrorism' means, he was a terrorist. Even with all the difficulties in defining the concept, Mandela was one. Even if you agree with his aims and methods, he was one. It's inescapable. Undoubtedly he also fought for freedoms and fought a great evil. He was, if you agreed with that aim, a freedom fighter. For me, that was certainly the case. But we shouldn't flinch from the first part. Trying to paint him as not a terrorist in a way does the man a disservice. I have no doubt he was a thoroughly good man throughout his days, so it says something of the fury he must have had back then to turn to force. We shouldn't whitewash him as some saint without flaw, all love and compassion. He had rage and that got him to take that action. Mandela will always be a complex character because of this. He did great things and became a rightly supremely respected figure, but he also was a terrorist in his younger life and it's difficult, for many people, to ever truly call that activity justifiable, no matter the justness of the cause. I know I struggle with it - I respect the man, and he was a immense figure for good and was front and centre in overturning a disgusting regime, but I would remain uncomfortable supporting that early activity despite agreeing wholeheartedly with his cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Well in your second paragraph (chindie), you seem to agree with me. Edit- Why it does him a disservice to not use the word terrorist escapes me. Edited December 8, 2013 by Kingfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 we must think of him as a terrorist in the same way we think of Bomber Harris as a terrorist he targeted and killed civilians to strike fear and terror in a society in order to gain a better world for all a bit like the U.S. state nuking two Japanese cities full of civilians and causing generations of deformities the positive side of terrorism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) When a US drone bombing hits a Pakistani home, is that considered terrorism? Edited December 8, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 When a US drone bombing hits a Pakistani home, is that considered terrorism? Should innocent people be killed then it would be murder rather than terrorism. The aim of the drone strike isn't to terrorise, it is to kill a specific person or persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) When a US drone bombing hits a Pakistani home, is that considered terrorism? Terrorism and mass murder. Edited December 8, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 It's arguing semantics, nuances of language. But I feel strongly that on the whole - the word terrorist, given its current connotations, is being misappropriated in this instance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Well in your second paragraph (chindie), you seem to agree with me.Edit- Why it does him a disservice to not use the word terrorist escapes me. You seemed to suggest that only people that disagreed with his aims would describe him as a terrorist. That isn't the case. I agreed with him. It does him a disservice as it neuters him, as well as shys away from honesty. Edited December 8, 2013 by Chindie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Well in your second paragraph (chindie), you seem to agree with me.Edit- Why it does him a disservice to not use the word terrorist escapes me.You seemed to suggest that only people that disagreed with his aims would describe him as a terrorist. That isn't the case. I agreed with him. It does him a disservice as it neuters him, as well as shys away from honesty.No not at all, I'm talking about appropriate use of language. Why call him a terrorist, given its connotations, when the equally legitimate term 'freedom fighter' can be used. I feel 'freedom fighter' better honours the man, the unfortunate victims of the struggle, and the overwhelming victory for freedom and humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 The aim of the drone strike isn't to terrorise I'm not too sure about that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Well in your second paragraph (chindie), you seem to agree with me.Edit- Why it does him a disservice to not use the word terrorist escapes me.You seemed to suggest that only people that disagreed with his aims would describe him as a terrorist. That isn't the case. I agreed with him. It does him a disservice as it neuters him, as well as shys away from honesty.No not at all, I'm talking about appropriate use of language. Why call him a terrorist, given its connotations, when the equally legitimate term 'freedom fighter' can be used. I feel 'freedom fighter' better honours the man, the unfortunate victims of the struggle, and the overwhelming victory for freedom and humanity. You needn't worry, history will view him in a strong light. We as individuals are free to view him however we like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 When a US drone bombing hits a Pakistani home, is that considered terrorism? Should innocent people be killed then it would be murder rather than terrorism. The aim of the drone strike isn't to terrorise, it is to kill a specific person or persons. You really think the US government doesn't want to send a message with these strikes along the lines of 'We will find you wherever you are and will will kill you regardless of your family being collateral damage if you oppose us"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) The aim of the drone strike isn't to terrorise I'm not too sure about that. I am, drone strikes are targeted assassinations (or extra-judicial executions) to kill a specific target. To follow AVFCforever's example of Pakistan, should the US wish to terrorise the population then they are more than capable of doing just that, rather than resource intensive high cost operations to target specific individuals. When a US drone bombing hits a Pakistani home, is that considered terrorism? Should innocent people be killed then it would be murder rather than terrorism. The aim of the drone strike isn't to terrorise, it is to kill a specific person or persons. You really think the US government doesn't want to send a message with these strikes along the lines of 'We will find you wherever you are and will will kill you regardless of your family being collateral damage if you oppose us"? A strong argument can be made that current (indeed all) engagements with terrorists are little more than info ops for the hearts and minds of the human terrain, with kinetic force applied where appropriate or necessary. I'd argue that the means to achieve the former are varied, detailed and not really for discussion over the internet, but drone strikes are functionally intended to do operational or in some cases strategic damage to a terrorist organisation, which is why they are strategic level assets and only tasked by very senior people. I'd say that those senior people don't really care if mom and the kids are blown to bits along with dad, but that is murder rather than terrorism, which by definition has a political motive as eloquently described above by Chindie. Edited December 8, 2013 by Awol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Well in your second paragraph (chindie), you seem to agree with me.Edit- Why it does him a disservice to not use the word terrorist escapes me.You seemed to suggest that only people that disagreed with his aims would describe him as a terrorist. That isn't the case. I agreed with him. It does him a disservice as it neuters him, as well as shys away from honesty.No not at all, I'm talking about appropriate use of language. Why call him a terrorist, given its connotations, when the equally legitimate term 'freedom fighter' can be used. I feel 'freedom fighter' better honours the man, the unfortunate victims of the struggle, and the overwhelming victory for freedom and humanity. You needn't worry, history will view him in a strong light. We as individuals are free to view him however we like.Events in history are there, set in stone, but the lessons are not. Language can distort and manipulate, so it's important we're clear about this, Mandela was NOT a terrorist. Look up the term freedom fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts