# Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist?



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

How does one decide when a armed person is a freedom fighter or a terrorist?

I've just seen a program on *BBC* news in which a *BBC* correspondent and cameraman were "embedded" with a group of armed men from the "*Free Syrian Army*" much like those journalists embedded with *NATO*/*American* and *British* forces in *Afghanistan* and *Iraq*. The correspondent followed these men as they tried to plant a large home-made bomb as close as possible to a *Syrian Army* (government forces) base.

Now I do not support what the *Syrian* government is doing to a large part of it's own population. But can you imagine the outrage if say for example an *Iranian* journalist had filmed a *Taliban* attack on a *NATO* base to be shown on state TV?

History is written by the victors look at the fight for independence in *Africa* and *Asia* in the 50s and 60s. *Alegria*, *Kenya*, *Libya*, *Malaysia*, *Indochina* and lets not forget the arming of the *Mujahideen* by the west during the *Soviet* war in *Afghanistan*.

So when does someone become freedom fighter and at what point does that person become a terrorist?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It seems that a freedom fighter is just a violent person on your side. If the potential freedom fighter is acting out of self defence because they are oppressed by a tyranny, then I think the violence is justifiable if directed properly. In all other circumstances, I don't think violence is justifiable for any causes, political or otherwise.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Freedom fighters _italicise_, terrorists *bolden*.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Terrorists attack civilians. That's the meaning and the intent of terrorism. Why is that confusing to you?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Terrorists attack civilians. That's the meaning and the intent of terrorism. Why is that confusing to you?


We are probably going to hear a whole lot of righteous nonsense from people who have never been under fire, lost their mates or realise how far these evil regimes go. Did you see the reports of what the Syrian forces did when they recently entered a "rebel" town?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

It depends who wins.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

It is all about how you frame it. For instance, America could easily be looked at as a terrorist nation currently. During the American Revolutionary War they were said to be terrorists. America has had a role in dismantling governments and inciting massacres. America is a terrorist nation, but by those with ties to it, they see it as something they are doing to preserve their "superior" values. This is why I believe nationality and blind allegiance is essentially a disease, because it forces perspective. Many terrorist groups believe they are doing what is right by trying to preserve their beliefs. Just because they are not a "legitimate organization" in the eyes of nations doesn't put them in a different class than a country doing the same thing as the terrorist groups. Essentially, the terrorists are the ones attacking you, and the ones fighting for you are the freedom fighters. I find them to all be terrorist groups, forcing war upon a populace and killing citizens to promote ideology. How anybody can look at the laundry list of horrible acts committed by a nation like The United States of America and see them in a positive light is beyond me.

I also want to show another instance of framing, and that is with pirates! Pirates have a bad reputation solely because who they stole from, and that is the wealthy trade merchants supported by the kingdoms. Yet we support the same kingdom that went about massacring and stealing goods and land from other nations. It is purely propaganda. Next time you think a group are by default "bad", stop and think about how your perspective is being influenced by such things.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Terrorists attack civilians. That's the meaning and the intent of terrorism.


A bit like the Israelis then. Or U.S. soldier Robert Bales.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re cnote11, I think what I'd say is that America, as a superpower (like the former USSR), will inevitably do things that have bigger effect worldwide than smaller/less powerful nations. But I don't think of them as terrorist nations, just superpowers doing what they do - which is not all good, a lot of it is outright bad decision making. Many examples there.

When I think of a terrorist, I think of them fighting for ideology rather than the common or greater good of a community/nation(which can be religion, but it can be just political).

Of course as L'enfer said, there is a thin line between freedom fighter and terrorist. Eg. Afghanistan is classic example. Under Soviet occupation, the mujahadeen where supported by USA as freedom fighters, fighting for liberation of the country. But don't forget this was late 1970's and early 1980's, so at the tail end of the Cold War, which I'd say was a time when ideology took over from common sense, or whatever common sense was left in politics, which by then was no gentleman's game, or even a facade of it, as it had been percieved as before. Anyway, as we know, once the Soviets left Afghanistan, it was ripe for the Taliban to happen, a good deal of whom would have been yesterday's "freedom fighters."

But with political agendas, real freedom fighters can be argued to be terrorists. The Nazis, in occupied countries of Europe, certainly would have called the resistance fighters who were against them to be terrorists, not the patriots which they obviously were, fighting to rid their countries of Nazi oppression - eg. the Czech resistance who assassinated Nazi goon Heydrich, in return Hitler murdered the whole town of Lidice.

So sometimes it's clear cut, sometimes not, and as people say, hindsight is a big factor in this.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Amfibius said:


> A bit like the Israelis then. Or U.S. soldier Robert Bales.


No. [echo to 10 characters]


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Amfibius said:


> A bit like the Israelis then...


Depends what side your on, ultimately.

Some think Che Guevara as their hero, wear his t-shirt. When I see that, I feel like ripping off the t-shirt. In my book, Che was a guy who sentenced Cuban peasants (or anyone else who didn't agree with him) to their deaths after the Revolution, for political reasons. A political assassin sitting on people's courts (well really kangaroo courts, phony courts). Of course the young trendy things wearing this murderer on their t-shirts, how do they know? You don't hear this on Oprah.



> ...Or U.S. soldier Robert Bales.


Please let's leave this, in respect for the dead at least.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

How do you figure America doesn't fight for an ideology, Sid? How do you explain the supporting of the Taliban to clean up the mess of supporting the mujaheddin? Would you toss off the American-backed genocide in East Timor as bad decision making? What about the massacres we helped create in Central and South America? We've certainly done our share to push a rampant anti-communism ideology as well as constantly stir the pot in certain regions of the world.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Terrorists attack civilians. That's the meaning and the intent of terrorism. Why is that confusing to you?


A freedom-fighter is just someone whose violence supports causes that the owners of western media corporations support; a terrorist is just someone whose violence opposes those causes. The distinction between civilians and troops is a red herring.

When a Muslim attacks Israeli or American troops: that's terrorism. We call it that all the time, from a suicide bomber in Beirut 1983 to Afghan terrorists using IEDs in 2012. Of course it is also terrorism if they attack our civilians. The distinction between troops and civilians doesn't matter: it's that they attack _us_. When we or our allies bomb Palestinian or Muslim (or, in the old days, communist) troops or civilians, that's fighting for freedom. If we fought the Vietnam War with today's vocabulary, we'd call the North Vietnamese terrorists and the South Vietnamese freedom-fighters (edit: even though both sides used exactly the same techniques).

It's really not possible to clarify things any further.

The one caveat might be that if a conventional military declared war and attacked us, we _might_ not call that terrorism. Of course that's not going to happen anytime soon, so it's at best an academic consideration.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> A freedom-fighter is just someone whose violence supports causes that the owners of western media corporations support; a terrorist is just someone whose violence opposes those causes. The distinction between civilians and troops is a red herring.
> 
> When a Muslim attacks Israeli or American troops: that's terrorism. We call it that all the time, from a suicide bomber in Beirut 1983 to Afghan terrorists using IEDs in 2012. Of course it is also terrorism if they attack our civilians. The distinction between troops and civilians doesn't matter: it's that they attack _us_.


Sloppy usage of the term 'terrorist' doesn't change its meaning. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism are not the same thing. The definition of 'terrorist' I gave is accurate; your usage is not correct. Sorry, guy.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sloppy usage of the term 'terrorist' doesn't change its meaning. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism are not the same thing. The definition of 'terrorist' I gave is accurate; your usage is not correct. Sorry, guy.


Slippery or not, my definition is the one most commonly used.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Slippery or not, my definition is the one most commonly used.


So you use it too? Somehow I must have missed the other symptoms of blind conformity you may have exhibited.

Just to show you another example... 'strategic' bombing is another form of terrorism. Aside from the nature of the target, tactical bombing (nearly obsolete nowadays) never employs heavy bombers, nor dumping loads from high altitudes.

Another example: IEDs employed to kill soldiers are used by guerrillas. The same people become terrorists when the IEDs are used against civilians.

See how simple it is?


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> So you use it too? Somehow I must have missed the other symptoms of blind conformity you may have exhibited.
> 
> Just to show you another example... 'strategic' bombing is another form of terrorism. Aside from the nature of the target, tactical bombing (nearly obsolete nowadays) never employs heavy bombers, nor dumping loads from high altitudes.
> 
> ...


I agree with your logic but it doesn't work like that in the real world *Hilly*. I.E.D.s, land mines or weapons of any kind don't tend to discriminate (is that the right word?) between solider (combatant) and civilian (non-combatant).

There is an argument to be made by some that no one is truly a "non-combatant" these days. Even if one does not take part in the conflict it is assumed that you the civilian support the government either politically and or financially through taxes etc.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> I agree with your logic but it doesn't work like that in the real world *Hilly*. I.E.D.s, land mines or weapons of any kind don't tend to discriminate (is that the right word?) between solider (combatant) and civilian (non-combatant).
> [...]


_Lenny_, IEDs are mostly under remote control. The guy with his finger on the button _can_ discriminate. Please try to pay attention.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I like this '_Hilly_' and '_Lenny_' stuff.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> I like this '_Hilly_' and '_Lenny_' stuff.




I think _Lenny_ is an old friend, though (s)he hasn't admitted it yet. And I could be wrong; RMCR is a jungle.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Hilly, if I may call you that, I think this thread is concerning itself with popular perception of these terms, and not actual definition. I think that is what science is getting at, as he is speaking on the propaganda usage and popular convention. I'm positive science isn't advocating such a viewpoint. 

Princeton defines terrorism as the following: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Hilly, if I may call you that, I think this thread is concerning itself with popular perception of these terms, and not actual definition. I think that is what science is getting at, as he is speaking on the propaganda usage and popular convention. I'm positive science isn't advocating such a viewpoint.
> 
> Princeton defines terrorism as the following: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


I think I get your point - but I object to the failure to discriminate. It doesn't require close study of guerrilla warfare to see that in many instances 'collateral damage' is not avoided - by the guerrillas _or_ their opposition. That doesn't change intent, and in my opinion that difference in intent (terrorist - guerrilla) is not academic, nor is it quibbling.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Lenny_, IEDs are mostly under remote control. The guy with his finger on the button _can_ discriminate. Please try to pay attention.


Most of them are not remote controlled. They work when something drives/walks over or by them. This is why there are still attacks on *NATO* troops when the *Taliban* go south for the winter. The six *British* troops killed a few weeks ago were killed by such a device.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

kv466 said:


> I like this '_Hilly_' and '_Lenny_' stuff.


Me to!  Although *Lenny* is a man's name.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think I get your point - but I object to the failure to discriminate. It doesn't require close study of guerrilla warfare to see that in many instances 'collateral damage' is not avoided - by the guerrillas _or_ their opposition. That doesn't change intent, and in my opinion that difference in intent (terrorist - guerrilla) is not academic, nor is it quibbling.


I understand and completely agree with you. I personally wouldn't equate guerrilla warfare with terrorism whatsoever. The Somalians used such tactics and one would be hard pressed to call them terrorists. I can't see the same being said about the Vietnamese, purely because while we were involved in the war, it didn't in any way reach our coasts itself. In that way, its acknowledged but isolated from daily conscious state. Terrorist is a new buzz word that is used far to often and often incorrectly, as you have pointed out, and as most in this thread knows I'm assuming. My fiancee phoned me the other day telling me that in one of her universities classes that someone used the phrase "looks like a terrorist" in the discussion. What a silly thing to say, isn't it? This is essentially what the word terrorist has become to the populace at large.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ Yeah, 'terrorist' is a buzzword nowadays.

The VC were both guerrillas and terrorists, depending on their targets. Regular troops are by definition not guerrillas, but their actions can make them terrorists. The concept - the defining characteristics - are so friggin' simple, I really don't understand the confusion.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> /\ Yeah, 'terrorist' is a buzzword nowadays.
> 
> The VC were both guerrillas and terrorists, depending on their targets. Regular troops are by definition not guerrillas, but their actions can make them terrorists. The concept - the defining characteristics - are so friggin' simple, I really don't understand the confusion.


Forget about apes for a moment. The point I was trying to make was the *BBC* by showing that film were in away condoning "terrorist" activity the very same sort of activity they would deplore if they didn't have a political motive behind their coverage. The *BBC* is meant to be natural it's part of it's mandate, to offer impartial reporting and be neutral when it comes to politics.

Guerilla tactics or no guerilla tactics the point is they followed a group of men trying to kill soldiers. Regardless of what those soldiers may or may not have done. The *BBC* has no involvement in the conflict as no *British* troops are on the ground (not counting special forces) so by the standards they would normally set themselves those men were/are terrorists as defined by the *BBC* in previous coverage. I merely thought opening this up to debate would be fun I was never confused.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> Forget about apes for a moment. The point I was trying to make was the *BBC* by showing that film were in away condoning "terrorist" activity the very same sort of activity they would deplore if they didn't have a political motive behind their coverage. The *BBC* is meant to be natural it's part of it's mandate, to offer impartial reporting and be neutral when it comes to politics.
> 
> Guerilla tactics or no guerilla tactics the point is they followed a group of men trying to kill soldiers. Regardless of what those soldiers may or may not have done. The *BBC* has no involvement in the conflict as no *British* troops are on the ground (not counting special forces) so by the standards they would normally set themselves those men were/are terrorists as defined by the *BBC* in previous coverage. I merely thought opening this up to debate would be fun I was never confused.


I suppose it depends on your definition of fun, we soldiers didn't think of it as fun. How ridiculous can you get?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

No wonder soldiers are miserable all the time. Apparently they don't know how to have a good time!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> No wonder soldiers are miserable all the time. Apparently they don't know how to have a good time!


What a pointless and useless remark.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> So you use it too? Somehow I must have missed the other symptoms of blind conformity you may have exhibited.


I don't think I use it much to express my own ideas, because its constant abuse renders it no longer a very precise term. I would only use it rhetorically.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

moody said:


> I suppose it depends on your definition of fun, we soldiers didn't think of it as fun. How ridiculous can you get?


I meant debating the topic not the being a solider getting killed part. If that isn't clear from my post well then I'm sorry but one needs to lighten up a tad. I didn't see you on the abortion thread saying "we foetuses don't think it's fun"...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> I meant debating the topic not the being a solider getting killed part. If that isn't clear from my post well then I'm sorry but one needs to lighten up a tad. I didn't see you on the abortion thread saying "we foetuses don't think it's fun"...


No and you will not, but knowing what that subject usually stirs up it's a wonder that nobody has said that.
I'm sorry but I don't think that the subject of your thread should have the word "fun" attached to it in any way. I also note that you spew out all the usual nonsense that no doubt you have picked up on-line or from the usual left-wing sources. What experience have you had in any of the various theatre's that you mention?
The job of the BBC reporters is to garner news and that is what they were doing.
The Syrian regime has been condemned by nearly every nation, so I think we can ignore the BBC's neutrality. Also in case you haven't noticed our government have condemned this evil regime, or have they been paid off by the big corporations?


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

Unfortunately, freedom fighters usually try to kill people (even of their own nationality and religion), who do not agree with their views.

Our own freedom fighters in the North Caucasus began with that in 1991. They threw out of the window a man, *who was of their own nation*, but did not support them. People should always remember that.

***
Militaries may be not terrorists, but they tend to get away from penalty. Unfortunately, not only in Russia (yes, I do not want to have anything in common with thoose "heroes", despite being of the same nationality). And I want to remind you that at least three countries still use *CLUSTER BOMBS,* as far as I know.

***
BTW, what do you think about *Maria Spiridonova*? Was she a terrorist or not? She was raped by Cossacks, etc.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Lenfer said:


> Guerilla tactics or no guerilla tactics the point is they followed a group of men trying to kill soldiers. Regardless of what those soldiers may or may not have done. The *BBC* has no involvement in the conflict as no *British* troops are on the ground (not counting special forces) so by the standards they would normally set themselves those men were/are terrorists as defined by the *BBC* in previous coverage. I merely thought opening this up to debate would be fun I was never confused.


Which side in the current Syrian conflict do you support?

And which side in the Libyan conflict last year did you support?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Here is an interesting scenario. We have the Queen's Diamond Jubilee this year and she is out and about everywhere.
We have the Olympics coming up shortly, if someone assassinates the Queen or kills a number of Olympians (it happened before in Germany) are they terrorists or freedom fighters , Lenfer ?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Very Senior Member said:


> Which side in the current Syrian conflict do you support?
> 
> And which side in the Libyan conflict last year did you support?


I don't see L'enfer going into battle for either of them, in a physical sense, so does it matter? (practically I mean, not intellectually or theoretically, etc., other than you maybe want to score certain points by forcing these questions).

& do I care which side for example you support? Answer is nope.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I don't see L'enfer going into battle for either of them, in a physical sense, so does it matter? (practically I mean, not intellectually or theoretically, etc., other than you maybe want to score certain points by forcing these questions).
> 
> & do I care which side for example you support? Answer is nope.


I merely asked which side of the Syrian conflict, and the previous Libyan conflict, conflict L'enfer supports.

Who said anything about "going into battle" for either side in a physical sense? Clearly I meant support in a moral sense.

Since she has raised this thread, and in the process has criticised the BBC for its method of reporting the conflict, I don't see any problem asking which side in the current Syrian conflict she supports. Therein might lie the answer as to whether she sees the protestors as "terrororists" or "freedom fighters".

Maybe you'd like to answer the question for her?


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

there isnt any distinction between the two terms, its just propaganda, letting you know terrorists are the bad guys, and freedom fighters are the good guys (or under dogs).

The Germans used a terror doctrine in world war 2. Gen Sherman used scorched earth to eliminate the southern armies in the civil war. There are examples of terror used in any historic battle, its not plausible for modern armies to use it now since media coverage is more advanced then what it was back in the day. Although we do still see it with the regimes in the middle east and africa, as well as tamil tigers.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

*Freedom fighter vs. terrorist*

Lenfer seems to have fled the field, even though this is her thread. Maybe it's got too hot for her

/


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> Which side in the current Syrian conflict do you support?
> 
> And which side in the Libyan conflict last year did you support?


I support neither I would like the people of Syria to be free to do as the wish without fear of oppression or death. I am not pro-*Assad* but I'm not pro-"*Free Syrian Army*" either. Thinking of the *FSA* as one cohesive group who all have good intentions and are nice "Western", middle-class, bourgeoisie sensibilities would be a mistake.

As for the *Libyan* conflict I didn't support the government and supported the no fly zone. However I was disgusted to see *Gaddafi* beaten and dragged through the street (again shown on the *BBC* and other networks). He was later executed not only was this wrong but it means that ever dictator who is loosing their grip on power will fight even harder to stay in power. As they saw what the west allowed to happen to *Gaddafi*.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

moody said:


> Lenfer seems to have fled the field, even though this is her thread. Maybe it's got too hot for her.


Nope I was unwell and unable to use the forum for more than a few minutes to check my messages. I have no problem with you *Moody* and never have. I don't have a problem with you being a solider either but I don't like your tone. I have done nothing to you all I said was opening a debate like this may be fun many people on this forum like to discus ethics and politics.

I enjoy reading their comments *Polednice*, *Hilltroll* and *Sid James* are all people who's opinion I've grown to respect (sorry I can't name everyone) and I wondered what each of them would bring to the discussion. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between questioning and condoning but please don't let this forum cause any sort of animosity between you and I.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

moody said:


> Here is an interesting scenario. We have the Queen's Diamond Jubilee this year and she is out and about everywhere.
> We have the Olympics coming up shortly, if someone assassinates the Queen or kills a number of Olympians (it happened before in Germany) are they terrorists or freedom fighters , Lenfer ?


I would say terrorists but that's my opinion. You seem to be asking me in such a way as if you have disagreed with me but I don't remember saying *X* was a one or another at any point.

I would very much like to see a the "*United Republics of Great Britain*" (I'd give the *Irish* back *Northern Ireland*). Even though I feel this way I wouldn't wish harm on *QEII* though nor her family and I think pro-sports and the Olympics is quite a pointless and hate the fact it takes over every 4 years like the *World Cup* I don't wish harm the fans or athletes either.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> I would say terrorists but that's my opinion. You seem to be asking me in such a way as if you have disagreed with me but I don't remember saying *X* was a one or another at any point.
> 
> I would very much like to see a the "*United Republics of Great Britain*" (I'd give the *Irish* back *Northern Ireland*). Even though I feel this way I wouldn't wish harm on *QEII* though nor her family and I think pro-sports and the Olympics is quite a pointless and hate the fact it takes over every 4 years like the *World Cup* I don't wish harm the fans or athletes either.


You must only understand that I was involved in this world and saw many friends killed and maimed. Not to mention so many civilians , it is very hard for me to talk about it but I think we should call it a day don't you ?
One point about Ireland you would probably have to make N.Ireland a republic I do not think they would mix well, even now they still don't.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

moody said:


> You must only understand that I was involved in this world and saw many friends killed and maimed. Not to mention so many civilians , it is very hard for me to talk about it but I think we should call it a day don't you ?
> One point about Ireland you would probably have to make N.Ireland a republic I do not think they would mix well, even now they still don't.


That's all right *Moody* I know it can be a sensitive subject. I know a topic on *Talk Classical* isn't going to change anything but I really do feel that if the wider public had debates like this then one wouldn't have to send people like you off to war (at least not ask much). If I agree or disagree with you or anyone else on the forum about this is just one of those things.

I didn't mean to cause offence to you or anyone else I'm glad there's no hard feelings. I did start to feel as if things were getting a little nasty and was quite surprised but it's not as if I've never gotten carried away myself so. Water under the bridge as they say?

:cheers::tiphat:


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Lenfer said:


> I support neither I would like the people of Syria to be free to do as the wish without fear of oppression or death. I am not pro-*Assad* but I'm not pro-"*Free Syrian Army*" either. Thinking of the *FSA* as one cohesive group who all have good intentions and are nice "Western", middle-class, bourgeoisie sensibilities would be a mistake.
> 
> As for the *Libyan* conflict I didn't support the government and supported the no fly zone. However I was disgusted to see *Gaddafi* beaten and dragged through the street (again shown on the *BBC* and other networks). He was later executed not only was this wrong but it means that ever dictator who is loosing their grip on power will fight even harder to stay in power. As they saw what the west allowed to happen to *Gaddafi*.


From your remarks you appear to have a particular dislike of the BBC. It was that matter which prompted my inquiry about your viewpoint on the merits of each side in the Syrian armed struggle, and the earlier Libyan one.

Would I be correct in inferring that your main agenda has been to knock the BBC's coverage of the Syrian situation rather than seek enlightenment on whether armed militia should be treated as terrorists or freedom fighters. May I ask whether you are suggesting that the BBC is the only TV organisation that has been giving favourable coverage of the anti-Assad side of the dispute? Why have you confined your remarks to the BBC when practically most other western media, following their Governments' leads, have adopted similar supportive positions of those Syrian forces trying to get rid of Assad.

Regards Libya, you say that you supported the no fly zone. But did you support Nato bombing too? More generally, did you support the rebels' cause against Gaddafi. If so why, and how is their cause different from the forces now lined up against Assad in Syria which you apparently don't support. And what about the western media's coverage of the various battle scenes in Libya. Did you find anything objectionable about the way it sided strongly with the anti-Gaddafi forces, including the use of embedded TV crews. Did you find objectionable the BBC's coverage of that war? Or perhaps you did approve of the way the media operated in that conflict, including the BBC. We don't know because you haven't told us.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> From your remarks you appear to have a particular dislike of the BBC. It was that matter which prompted my inquiry about your viewpoint on the merits of each side in the Syrian armed struggle, and the earlier Libyan one.
> 
> Would I be correct in inferring that your main agenda has been to knock the BBC's coverage of the Syrian situation rather than seek enlightenment on whether armed militia should be treated as terrorists or freedom fighters. May I ask whether you are suggesting that the BBC is the only TV organisation that has been giving favourable coverage of the anti-Assad side of the dispute? Why have you confined your remarks to the BBC when practically most other western media, following their Governments' leads, have adopted similar supportive positions of those Syrian forces trying to get rid of Assad.
> 
> Regards Libya, you say that you supported the no fly zone. But did you support Nato bombing too? More generally, did you support the rebels' cause against Gaddafi. If so why, and how is their cause different from the forces now lined up against Assad in Syria which you apparently don't support. And what about the western media's coverage of the various battle scenes in Libya. Did you find anything objectionable about the way it sided strongly with the anti-Gaddafi forces, including the use of embedded TV crews. Did you find objectionable the BBC's coverage of that war? Or perhaps you did approve of the way the media operated in that conflict, including the BBC. We don't know because you haven't told us.


I actually quite like the *BBC* well their "*World Service*", *Radio 3* and sometimes *Radio 4* are ok to listen to as well as *BBC 4*. However since I've been living in the *UK* I've been shocked by the *UK* based BBC news. Mostly because of reports like that one mentioned in my post. But also the way they pick on the poorer parts of society in *Britain* (of which I'm not a part so there's no bias on my part).

I can speak a few languages so I'm not stuck watching the *BBC* or *CNN* etc and there was reports that some of the "rebels" in *Libya* were more than slightly shady that didn't get reported here at the time. My post was not trying to knock the *BBC* it was trying to show the hypocrisy, they could have easily showed the same footage and used "terrorists" but they choose to paint them as the good guys which no doubt some of them will be but not all.

I could use Ireland as an example but I won't at least not to night. The coverage of late has been very one sided it's getting to the stage were the *BBC* is no better than some of the *American News Networks* at least the *British* arm of the *BBC* anyway. I get the feeling and I'm sorry if I don't get the expression right but the *BBC* are now for "pulling the ladder up" on those who they feel are beneath them in *Britain* and this is reflected in it's coverage abroad..

Edit:

I was not in favour of the bombing when it went beyond the bombing of weapons stationed outside of towns. They used "command centre" but those were civilian houses as well just not the right civilians. These conflicts are civil wars and the west doesn't have a good track recorded with them. I think the last one the *English* won was the *English Civil* war...

The west is creating big problems in the middle east again for future generations. I don't want anyone to suffer or die but there going to it all depends on how many. Every region goes through this it's only in the middle east and central *Asia* we the west stick someone in charge then decide we don't like them years down the line.

Then when they do elect someone of their own choice we don't like that either because they tend to vote for right-wing Islamic parties.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Your comments don't surprise me one bit, Lenfer. Here in America, Washington's attitude has always been the same. Any foreign leader who decides to nationalize his/her country's oil reserves, and or sell oil in any other currency than the US dollar is painted as an evil despot who must be removed. Never mind the evil despots who do Washington's bidding. This was true in the cases of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, and they are now dead.

The rebels fighting to overthrow the Nicaraguan government in the 1980s were labeled freedom fighters by the Reagan administration, but in fact were a creation of the CIA. A motley group of mercenaries with personal agendas.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2012)

Yeah, there was no other reason to label Saddam Hussein an evil despot. So what that he used chemical warfare on the Kurds. So what that, under his regime, he was having people fed into wood chippers. So what that he invaded to sovereign nation of Kuwait. So what that he was taking the Oil for Food Money and using it to build lavish palaces while his people starved. So what that he was subsidizing the families of Palestinian terrorists. The Economist, which is published in London, not Washington, described him as "one of the last of the 20th century's great dictators, but not the least in terms of egotism, or cruelty, or morbid will to power." Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International regularly cited Iraq under Hussein for widespread imprisonment and torture. But you are right - his description as an evil despot is clearly just a construct of the U.S. government.

Or Gaddafi - a very cheery individual. Nevermind that it was his own people who overthrew and killed him - they were just brainwashed by what they read from American news sources. We can ignore the early 1980's when political dissidents were executed and mutilated in public. Or the Revolutionary Committees who sent out operatives to assassinate Libyan dissidents abroad. We can ignore the 23 metric tons of mustard gas he had stockpiled that were discovered in 2004. Or his numerous attempts to procure a nuclear bomb from Pakistan. It is also widely believed that he played a significant role in the Lockerbie bombing. He financed the military junta in Ethiopia that later was found to have committed one of the worst cases of genocide on record. He was a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic. His agents staged a bombing of a West German nightclub in 1986. He also supported terrorist groups in the Phillipines.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

What's the story on Mosaddegh?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You know Dr. Mike, I'm getting tired of your disingenuous retorts. Of course there were other reasons, but they were not the reasons that concerned the power elite in Washington, or the oil executives. If anything, Saddam's regime was a construct of the US government. 

Where is Washington's voice of outage for the Saudi regime, or the endlessly corrupt regimes in Pakistan, or the horrible dictatorships that have destroyed Haiti, or what the Shaw did to the Iranian people? Or for Saddam's regime when it was serving the American agenda in the 1980s? No, we hear nothing because these horrible regimes served the interests of the American plutocrats.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2012)

So if we have ever failed to condemn, or even sided with, a regime that was bad, evil, or corrupt, then we are doomed to forever support them or be criticized by people who have a hard time distinguishing between freedom fighters and terrorists?

Yes, throughout our history (but mostly in the 20th century and beyond), we have sided with some pretty unsavory groups when it was expedient to do so. You don't even mention our propping up of Stalin during WWII - a brutal dictator who killed millions, but at the time, it was critical to defeat Nazi Germany. Do we side with the Saudi regime and with Pakistan? Yes - not because we think they are swell people, but because we have so few allies in the Middle East, and they are at least marginally on our side. Saddam's regime was not a construct of the US government - it served the same purpose against Iran that supporting the tribal groups did in Afghanistan while Russia was invading. But Saddam was made before we ever got involved.

Sometimes you have to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. It isn't pretty, it isn't ideal, but sometimes it is the only option you have.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Basically, you two said the same thing.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

No, I didn't bother to mention the alliance with Stalin for the obvious reasons you pointed out. I just get tired of the lip service and blatantly obvious propaganda the American people are fed by the government, and the complicity on the part of the television media. I mean silly things like putting one of our soldiers on camera in Afghanistan to naively state that "we're here to help the Afghan people." And I'm sure many of these young soldiers are genuine and want to help, but this is not the mission of the US military in Afghanistan. No, it's not a social or humanitarian mission. It's about oil.

What's even more frightening is the increasing tyranny of the state here in America where laws are being quietly passed to make it easier to go after journalists and other dissidents who oppose the official narrative. All in the name of national security and the war on terror. We have the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by president Obama just this past December 31, 2011.

As far as the Baath party in Iraq is concerned, they most definitely were assisted by the CIA in overthrowing the previous regime from what I've read.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/28/guest_op_ed_mek_and_its_material_supporters_in_washington/singleton/

This has some interesting thoughts on what "terrorism" is.


----------

