Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    So being a terrorist can be acceptable then?
    Yes - but invariably in hindsight! Anwar Sadat was another man who was jailed by the British for trying to oust them from Egypt. He ended up a 'hero' - so much so he was assassinated!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    So being a terrorist can be acceptable then?
    You can be great without being good. What Mandela achieved was great, he changed the course of a nation. Personally, I believe he was great and good, though he give me an interview!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, my question was more rhetorical than anything. It's one thing to call Mandela a terrorist in the respect that he did from time to time use terrorist tactics, but the use of the t-word is so undeniably negative in this day and age, which I don't think is appropriate, if we consider just what he was fighting against, and what was achieved.

    To sum up, the use of a negative word like 'terrorist' to describe Mandela implies that what he was doing / achieved was also remotely negative itself. If we consider the circumstances, I can't see any real argument to say that what Mandela was doing was at all negative.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    By targetting innocent civilians, right?
    And by training young boys to commit suicide.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Jond, what military targets were there in Dresden? It's widely acknowledged that the aim was to wipe out the workforce and create terror.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Jond, what military targets were there in Dresden? It's widely acknowledged that the aim was to wipe out the workforce and create terror.
    Widely acknowledged by your sort of people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    may i make a suggestion? feckin freaks on nature...evil blood thirsty, vile batty men!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    So being a terrorist can be acceptable then?
    Yes! I think this is the point I've been trying to make. The difference is that when being a terrorist is (or becomes) "acceptable", that terrorist becomes known as a freedom fighter - Nelson Mandela being my example of this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    Allied forces in WWII bombed Dresden, one of the worst attrocities of the war. Dresden had no military or major transportation network etc but we bombed the beautiful city and killed over 100000 civilans.
    Dresden was a major transportation centre due to its extensive railyards, which intelligence showed the Germans intended to use to transfer several million soldiers through to the Eastern front. Bombing the transportation network stopped this and prevented the Soviet advance from the East from being hindered. Plus there were well over 100 factories there producing war materiel for the Wermacht.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As a Londoner I find it quite offensive that anyone should call these scum 'freedom fighters', may I direct you to this from Searchlight, which sums up my feelings on the issue quite well..

    Thursday 7 July 2005 will be a day that no decent resident of London or the UK will forget. Less than 24 hours after we were awarded the 2012 Olympics, a decision made partly because London is such a multicultural and tolerant city, the heart of our capital has been ripped apart by four bombs.

    It seems likely that the bombings were the responsibility of Islamist terrorists – religious fanatics who are nothing more than clerical fascists. They preach the politics of hatred and are indiscriminate in their targets. These cowardly bombings were an assault on innocent Londoners, Christian and Hindu, Muslim and Jew, black, brown and white going about their daily business.

    Those who say they were responsible are using the language of European antisemitism when they talk of the "British Zionist Crusader government". They cite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as their motives but they are liars. They took the decision to bomb ordinary people in the city that held the world's biggest anti-war demonstration because of their own twisted hatred for democracy and for the idea that people of all cultures and faiths can live harmoniously together.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    terrorists.

    bombers could also be used i suppose.

    the first two arent appropriate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They are all arent they? Why should just one label apply? It depends who you ask...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway how can you ask 'What should we call terrorists?' Its both bias and contradictory...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdul)
    They are all arent they? Why should just one label apply? It depends who you ask...
    That's an odd choice. "Freedom Fighter-Militant-Bomber-Terrorists caused explosions in London" is bit big, though.

    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Anyway how can you ask 'What should we call terrorists?' Its both bias and contradictory...
    The poll question is "What is the best word to use?"
 
 
 

3,378

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.