The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'T' is for 'freedom fighter' at the ABC > Comments

'T' is for 'freedom fighter' at the ABC : Comments

By Fran Feldman, published 29/6/2005

Fran Feldman argues the new 'ABC Style Guide' raises some serious concerns regarding advice to journalists.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
This quote:

"Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim."

Is from an interview in this week's Time Magazine with a young man training to be a suicide bomber
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1077288,00.html

I think that settles THAT argument!
Posted by workrite, Thursday, 30 June 2005 1:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". Only an idiot or an immoral person says something like that. A terrorist is someone who kills the innocent, usually women or children, usually because he is afraid of his real enemy. A freedom fighter is just a propaganda term for the same. Our founding fathers didn't call themselves freedom fighters; they called themselves rebels, which they were. And they didn't target the innocent. They fought enemy soldiers.

It is the same today. The U.S. army is very careful to only target enemy soldiers or terrorists. Israel too only targets enemy soldiers or terrorists. But our enemies target the innocent: women, children and bystanders who have nothing to do with the fight. That is immoral. It is evil and it is what makes them terrorists.

Anyone who tries to muddy the issue with that idiotic "terrorist/freedom fighter" line makes it easier for murderers to get away with it.
Posted by Isaac, Thursday, 30 June 2005 4:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what would you define as state based terrorism?
What do you call nation states who have not been threated by other nation states - but because of alliances go to war with this same nations?
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 30 June 2005 6:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it particularly worrying that the very people who have been entrusted to communicate to the public about world events, ie certain broadcasting organisations, their journalists and their editors and so on, are the ones that lack the clarity, moral integrity and courage to do so. They can't call a spade a spade...or a terrorist a terrorist! And what pathetic excuses they make. Makes me wonder whether these people really understand how dangerous a game they play.
Feisty
Posted by feisty, Thursday, 30 June 2005 6:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word terrorism should be linked to acts not ideology. I like this definition -

When a politically motivated group attacks civilians – irrespective of country, nationality and cause – the only proper response is uncompromising condemnation. Those who kill or maim defenseless people should never be entitled to the honour of being regarded as freedom fighters. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the struggle, the politically motivated killing of civilians is terrorism.
Rohan Gunaratna, 2002

There a plenty of words to cover government or criminal violence against civilions.
Posted by davod, Thursday, 30 June 2005 10:09:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps there are good reasons for the press to avoid using the word "terrorist" in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict? The report Off the Charts: Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html sets out some of them. The findings of responsibility in the Kahan Commission Report set out others, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/104%20Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20e. Reports of the 1953 massacre in Qibya (eg http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0712-03.htm) set out yet more. The reporting of B'Tselem, at http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp looks more clearly at the terror than this article.
Posted by isabelberners, Friday, 1 July 2005 10:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy