Resistance fighters - terrorists or heros?
-
Just a question that popped into my mind. When one country surrenders to another, but there remains resistance groups in the surrendering country, are they then considered "terrorists"? Or "heros"?
Examples: France Resistance in WW2, current Iraqi insurgents, even Singapore's own Lim Bo Seng and Force 136. -
Legitimate resistance forces do not terrorise their own civilians.
-
It's increasingly difficult in modern warfare to distinguish between "legitimate" forces and unconventional participants. Just witness the legal wrangling about the classification of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. There's no hard and fast rule really. Even the Geneva Convention is becoming increasingly outdated in this age of terrorism.
-
well ... I think it's simple really ... the side that'll take into consideration "collateral damages" and take pains to avoid civilian casualties has the legitimacy ... the side that indiscriminately (or rather, deliberately) target women and children should be labelled terrorists ? .....
of course, it's all a bit blurry really, I remember this malaysian staff officer casually talking about poisoning Singapore's water supply in the advent of war with us ... it was reported by newspapers on both sides of the causeway ....
what I cannot get is why some countries are held to a different standards than others ? .... when the americans or brits or other allied troops bomb the wrong place or some soldiers under severe combat "offs" some terrorists, the whole world cries foul ... but hey, when some fanatics launch rockets against civilians, drive a couple of planes into buildings, or bomb a few trains or buses, or slowly slice off people's heads on camera .... hey, no problem, they are terrorists, it's what they do ! ...
double standards of course, but hey, it's what separates the civilised people and the barbarians eh ..... -
Cos ppl have a bone to pick with them. Heh.Originally posted by Fatum:well ... I think it's simple really ... the side that'll take into consideration "collateral damages" and take pains to avoid civilian casualties has the legitimacy ... the side that indiscriminately (or rather, deliberately) target women and children should be labelled terrorists ? .....
of course, it's all a bit blurry really, I remember this malaysian staff officer casually talking about poisoning Singapore's water supply in the advent of war with us ... it was reported by newspapers on both sides of the causeway ....
what I cannot get is why some countries are held to a different standards than others ? .... when the americans or brits or other allied troops bomb the wrong place or some soldiers under severe combat "offs" some terrorists, the whole world cries foul ... but hey, when some fanatics launch rockets against civilians, drive a couple of planes into buildings, or bomb a few trains or buses, or slowly slice off people's heads on camera .... hey, no problem, they are terrorists, it's what they do ! ...
double standards of course, but hey, it's what separates the civilised people and the barbarians eh ..... -
If they on your side they r hero but if they r on e enemy's side then they r terrorists
-
looking at the Lebanese mess right now, i wonder how the people there look to Hezbollah as "heroes" when the Hezbollah purposely use civilian backyards, UN posts, markets and schools to launch their rockets into Israel.. hoping that Israel bombs these places.. in order to score political points in the world stage?
terrorists? or heroes?
heroes protect the weak.. and not turn their "own people" into cannon fodder for political advantage... -
like they say
one country's patriot, another country's terrorist -
