yeah...I might wanna try and see if I can fetch an unworldly price for it on the auction houses (when they ever get here). Something like 70k.

Just a question for Satis/11b (or anyone really).

If you took up your consitutional right (or whatever) to bear arms and use them against your oppressive government. You would be defined a terrorist, no?

Quote- one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.
Answer is basically yes.

Not if you define it properly.

but it depends on the situation- a freedom fighter is someone that fights for freedom, a terrorist is someone that uses terror to achieve political gain. Yes freedom fighters in that definition can be peaceful but the meaning overlaps quite a bit, plus it describes the situation that you've said pretty well.

You can fight for freedom but when you purposedly kill citizens you are a terrorist. I think that's a nice and easy definition.

blurred lines tho, what the saying means tho is that active freedom fighters- even tho they might be in the right, are still viewed as terrorists form the opposite side.

In my opinion, terrorists kill civilians and innocent people in an attempt to instill terror in the populace and thus unbalance the government (or whatever).

Freedom fighters do NOT kill civilians. They only kill legitimate, hardened targets (ie, military and police) and are interested in acquiring the support of the populace to unbalance the government (or whatever) through popular support.

The minute a group purposefully kills civilians, they become terrorists, imo.

The American Revolution exemplifies freedom fighters....the American side rebelled against the British, but kept their killing to British troops. They didn't go around butchering civilians to obtain their goal. Thus they got the popular support of the colonies.

That's my perception, at least. Perhaps, having grown up on different sides of the pond, we got majorly different interpretations of history taught to us.

So what do you define the Viet Cong as.?

it depends on your point of view.

Example:
I'm living in village a along with mole. village a is oppressed by village b. Mole hates their terms and wants village b to die and go to hell. However, their 'terms' are to my liking and I'm happy.

village c comes in and kills off the village b soldiers, freeing our village. I find village c to be a bunch of terrorists who need murdering for their nosey ways and barbaric deeds. mole thinks village c are freedom fighters, out for justice and freedom for all.

It's like how greenpeace are saviours to those who are for animal rights, and everyone who wants to wear fur coats think they're layaround bums who are pretty much only one step down from terrorists.

I daresay if you went to Iraq, some iraqis would love the americans for their freedom fighting, others would consider them terrorists as they have bombed their hometowns. Plus if the killing of an innocent civilian makes you a terrorist... well name me an army that hasn't belonged to a terrorist country then. Especially if you use bombs. You can never be certain that the area you drop the bomb on contains only enemy soldiers. Children have died in gunfights. Elderly and women have been shotdown or runover in the midst of warfare. I know thats a bit different to deliberately pointing your gun at the random person over there and shooting, but its still the same kinda thing. All you have to say is "i suspected them of helping the enemy" and its ok. you can shoot whoever you like.[/i]

the key to that is purposeful killing of civilians. shit happens, people die, it's the nature of hte universe. Going out of your way to purposefully blow up a bus full of children is a terrorist act.

The viet cong were terrorists. They wiped out entire villages that were thought to be friendly to the Americans. They got most of their support from villagers not because the villagers liked them, but because they were afraid of them. Through terror (ism).

Anyway, I'll agree the distinction can be muddy at times. and if you're dead, you're dead, doesn't really matter who killed you.

I think weve hit the buzzer on this one. I asked my dad on the matter, and he defines terrorism as the killing/harming of innocents.

The red brigade targetted corrupt politicians only as far as im aware. So he sais this is not terrorism.

A true example of terrorism in that case would be 9/11. Where innocents were targetted.

Satis you might want to remember the WAM project- the Vietnese hated the Americans perhaps more because they would burn down their villages and failed to win the loyalty of them. That's why you lost the Vietnam War

Official policy wasn't to kill the villagers, it was to convert them. Hearts and minds and all that. Besides, I think we lost it because the politicians were a bunch of weasels and wouldn't commit to a real war. They were constantly putting artificial limitations on military operations.

It really wasn't a war on its own, anyway. It was just an extension of the cold war. Communism vs capitalism. The communists won that round. We won in Afghanistan (not the Taliban one, the one where the Soviets were driven out). Capitalism ultimately won that war.

Official policy doesn't necesarily stop terrorist actions committed by people lower in the command tree.