[LeftyGuns]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Friday, Feb 17 2012, 08:29)

Like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Maybe. One thing that I never completely understood was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We slaughtered over one hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children. Civilians. We could have targeted a military instillation but chose a civilian population. How is that not terrorism when its purpose was supposed to be to change the Japanese governments stance on the war. Surrendering. Changing politics through creating fear in a civilian population with acts of violence is terrorism. We see it as patriotic. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

It wasn't an act of terrorism,there is no terrorism during open warfare between two countries. It was the established method of thinking that the Japanese couldn't be bargained with, and their war machine and it's appetite for expansion and destruction had to be curbed by any means necessary.

The atomic bomb wasn't designed with tactical use in mind. It was designed with the use of dominance for the person who possessed it. During total war there will always be casualties, and statements will be made. The use of the atomic bomb was purely the statement to the Japanese by the Americans, "Hey, see what we did here? Your move" The Japanese obviously took the statements with the weight that they should have and went from "We won't be stopped to hey, let's talk about this"

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Feb 17 2012, 17:32)

In reference to some earlier statements- a Taliban fighter is not a terrorist unless he conducts his activity against civilian infrastructure or individuals based on identifying factors. He is only a freedom fighter if he uses violence in the pursuit of a legitimate political goal which is supported by a large, determined portion of a population whose views have been sidelined by an acting state or regional government. Outside of these two definitions, he is a violent non-state actor; often used as a byword for a terrorist, but simply meaning an individual who has no clear mandate to use force, yet does so. Classifying him as either is incorrect unless he meets certain requirements.

you mean the same kind of conduct such as a bunch of Americans sneaking into a harbor at night and throwing a bunch of British tea into the water to make a statement?

granted, it's not as destructive as today's brand of terrorist, but it still made the same point.

If you look at the tools that were had in days of the Boston Tea Party and the tools of the Modern Age, you'd have to use a sliding scale to see if they would match up. I believe that they do.

If you want a controlled instance of one group viewing themselves as Freedom Fighters while the others view them as Terrorists, take a look at "The Troubles" which is the Northern Ireland v Great Britain conflict. The Northern Irish saw themselves as freedom fighters trying to oppose the tyrant rule of England. The use of carbombs and other explosives however lump them in your group as a terrorist though they actually fit in the freedom fighter section. There is a gray area that political correctness doesn't delve into because, one: it could make them look like fools for being there in the first place. two: it would be a small to large victory for the actual Freedom Fighters depending on what concessions were made and what was actually admitted, and three: the best way to put down an insurgency is to try and crush them and use plenty of propaganda to not only demoralize the group with active propaganda presence, but to wash the minds of those who have no real knowledge of the fight and paint the so called Freedom Fighters as nothing more than home grown terrorists.

"Couple of hundred years ago, a few guys named Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were branded traitors by the British - and now they're called patriots" -Ed Harris, "The Rock"

It's all about perception of the conflict.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

You'll never define what is a freedom fighter and what is a terrorist because you'll never have a genuine opportunity to view a conflict in a purely unbiased sense.

This post has been edited by LeftyGuns on Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 15:15

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 16:09)

you mean the same kind of conduct such as a bunch of Americans sneaking into a harbor at night and throwing a bunch of British tea into the water to make a statement?

Not at all. Throwing boxes of tea into the harbour isn't equatable to terrorism because it doesn't use violence to instil a climate of fear; it doesn't indiscriminately target non-combatants and it doesn't cause unnecessary damage to civilian infrastructure or disproportionate harm to individuals targeted on a per-determined basis such as ethnic or political characteristics. You've got the basic idea right- that is, that the mindset behind doing so from the American perspective in your example is a mindset of a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist, but you can't equate the two because the level of violence involved is what defines terrorism and violent rebellion.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 16:09)

You'll never define what is a freedom fighter and what is a terrorist because you'll never have a genuine opportunity to view a conflict in a purely unbiased sense.

I disagree completely. Regardless of your personal association with a conflict, you can easily determine what is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter by their methodology. If they target civilians indiscriminately, attempt to produce a climate of fear, or target people based on predetermined characteristics such as race, ethnicity or political beliefs, then you have terrorists. A group like the IRA, who have the mindset of freedom fighters but use terrorist tactics, are still terrorists. A "true" freedom fighter legitimises their struggle by drawing the adversary into being the morally repugnant power- by causing them to over-react violently to what are comparatively legitimate attacks- for instance, those targeted against military infrastructure on a small scale, as we saw in, say, the Afghan mujahedeen during the mid 1980s. However terrorists will engage in violence against non-combatants on a large scale solely for the purposes of supporting their cause. The distinction is quite simple- one legitimises their cause by limiting the scale, scope and methodology they employ, and the other does not, therefore damaging the legitimacy of any argument they put forwards. Hence my belief that Ernesto Guevara was in actuality a terrorist (well, more accurately a mercenary working for a terrorist movement) rather than a freedom fighter.

In short, the "one man's terrorist" is a crap aphorism because "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are sufficiently different in their definition so that anyone reasonably educated on the subject can identify between the two regardless of any personal or cultural influencing factor.

[LeftyGuns]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 11:58)

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 16:09) you mean the same kind of conduct such as a bunch of Americans sneaking into a harbor at night and throwing a bunch of British tea into the water to make a statement? Not at all. Throwing boxes of tea into the harbour isn't equatable to terrorism because it doesn't use violence to instil a climate of fear; it doesn't indiscriminately target non-combatants and it doesn't cause unnecessary damage to civilian infrastructure or disproportionate harm to individuals targeted on a per-determined basis such as ethnic or political characteristics. You've got the basic idea right- that is, that the mindset behind doing so from the American perspective in your example is a mindset of a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist, but you can't equate the two because the level of violence involved is what defines terrorism and violent rebellion. QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 16:09) You'll never define what is a freedom fighter and what is a terrorist because you'll never have a genuine opportunity to view a conflict in a purely unbiased sense. I disagree completely. Regardless of your personal association with a conflict, you can easily determine what is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter by their methodology. If they target civilians indiscriminately, attempt to produce a climate of fear, or target people based on predetermined characteristics such as race, ethnicity or political beliefs, then you have terrorists. A group like the IRA, who have the mindset of freedom fighters but use terrorist tactics, are still terrorists. A "true" freedom fighter legitimises their struggle by drawing the adversary into being the morally repugnant power- by causing them to over-react violently to what are comparatively legitimate attacks- for instance, those targeted against military infrastructure on a small scale, as we saw in, say, the Afghan mujahedeen during the mid 1980s. However terrorists will engage in violence against non-combatants on a large scale solely for the purposes of supporting their cause. The distinction is quite simple- one legitimises their cause by limiting the scale, scope and methodology they employ, and the other does not, therefore damaging the legitimacy of any argument they put forwards. Hence my belief that Ernesto Guevara was in actuality a terrorist (well, more accurately a mercenary working for a terrorist movement) rather than a freedom fighter. In short, the "one man's terrorist" is a crap aphorism because "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are sufficiently different in their definition so that anyone reasonably educated on the subject can identify between the two regardless of any personal or cultural influencing factor.

@1st point: Throwing tea into a harbor is damaging to the economic infrastructure as it was one of the imports of the day.
Think about what they cost the company: The time in wages to get the shipped to the warehouse, the cost of loading it from one ship probably to a warehouse. The lost space of the warehouse that could be costing money if a more lucrative commodity could be housed. The cost there again to load it onto a ship. The cost of the difference of shipping a more lucrative commodity within the ship. Cost of the crew, and the logistical cost to get it to the colonies. A lot of money was lost. Economic terrorism is the same as terrorism. The company wasn't a combatant, and neither were the customs officers and tax collectors when examples were made of them, "tarring and feathering" and things of that nature. Bottom line, it gave a black eye to the regime in charge. That's where the line between terrorist and freedom fighter is drawn. It's on whatever side of the conflict you're on.

The only difference between this day and the day of the American Revolution is the level of violence. Violence has evolved with the time as warfare in general has. As people have found more effective ways to kill each other, the violence level has grown.


@2nd point: Are you really going to say that what the Irish are fighting for is terrorism? come on now. It would be no different if a government set up shop and made you run check points and show your id where ever you go. The fighting of oppression is freedom fighting no matter what tactics are used. Terrorists....they all believe they're fighting an oppressor, but so does a Freedom Fighter. The methods in which they fight don't define a terrorist nor a freedom fighter. Everyone who is fighting anyone believes they are fighting for a cause worth dying over and the enemy is the morally repugnant power. I can tell you right now, if you were to ask the Soviets during the 80's, the Mujahadeen were viewed as terrorists. The Soviets were fighting a conventional ware against unconventional people. It's the same war the United States is in right now.

If you want the true difference it's the terrain. People usually generalize a freedom fighter as someone fighting for their home. Given the chance, you'd never convince me that if they had a way to damage the enemy in their own home, they wouldn't.

The scope of any fighter, branded terrorist or freedom fighter is to win the objective. That's it. There is no, we won't do this, we won't do that. The objective is to win.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01)

@1st point: Throwing tea into a harbor is damaging to the economic infrastructure as it was one of the imports of the day.

So is conducting attacks on legitimate military targets. That doesn't make it an act of terrorism. I've quite clearly defined terrorism in it's intentional targeting of civilians or other non-combatants but yet again you seem to completely ignore this. So despite your insistence, your analogy does not work.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01)

@2nd point: Are you really going to say that what the Irish are fighting for is terrorism? come on now. It would be no different if a government set up shop and made you run check points and show your id where ever you go.

In a word, yes. The Docklands bombing was of no strategic or operational value to the the IRA, for instance. They may have the mentality of a freedom fighters organisation, but the use of terrorism as part of their strategy makes them terrorists, pure and simple. You can argue about the worth of their cause all you want, but terrorism is defined by operational and tactical factors, not by aspirations.

The legitimacy of the cause is entirely irrelevant in discussing issues of terrorism. It's a strictly defined concept which is commonly misused by all sorts of people, but strictly defined it nonetheless is.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01)

The fighting of oppression is freedom fighting no matter what tactics are used. Terrorists....they all believe they're fighting an oppressor, but so does a Freedom Fighter.

No it isn't. It's perfectly possible to be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter which is why the over-used maxim is so stupid. As I've already made clear, a "freedom fighter" is a political position or mindset. A "terrorist" is defined by the tactics they use.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01)

I can tell you right now, if you were to ask the Soviets during the 80's, the Mujahadeen were viewed as terrorists.

Can you? Are you going to turn around to someone whose studies Cold War strategic theory and spout this revisionist nonsense? The Soviets never viewed the Mujahideen as terrorists, partially because they tended not to use such a term in their lexicon and partially because, as the Soviet Union was the aggressor and the Mujahideen did not engage in large-scale attacks on non-military targets , to do so would have been a blatant contradiction and falsehood.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01)

The Soviets were fighting a conventional ware against unconventional people. It's the same war the United States is in right now.

No it isn't. Claiming that the current conflict in Afghanistan is the "same" war that was being fought by the Soviets is utterly absurd. The primary aggressor of the current conflict didn't even exist until years after the Soviet withdrawal. It's got the same historical base but it's far from the same conflict.

[GOUSN1776]

A bully, bank robber, and suicide bombers are terrorists. The "terrorists" that you're referring to are classified as insurgents. Also, there has been "war" in the middle east for thousands of years. Next time, before posting such an ignorant question, please do some research.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GOUSN1776 @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 10:39)

A bully, bank robber, and suicide bombers are terrorists. The "terrorists" that you're referring to are classified as insurgents. Also, there has been "war" in the middle east for thousands of years. Next time, before posting such an ignorant question, please do some research.

I hope that isn't aimed at me. First off, if it is, Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. Secondly, terrorism is a very strictly defined term and does not preclude insurgency movements from also being terrorists.

I presune you are in fact responding to the op.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Monday, Apr 30 2012, 10:02

[GOUSN1776]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 09:45)

I presune you are in fact responding to the op.

Yes, I am.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 04:45)

Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

I think that's news to most Americans at least. Everyone here thinks the Middle East is everywhere they wear "towels".

[GOUSN1776]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 09:45)

QUOTE (GOUSN1776 @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 10:39) A bully, bank robber, and suicide bombers are terrorists. The "terrorists" that you're referring to are classified as insurgents. Also, there has been "war" in the middle east for thousands of years. Next time, before posting such an ignorant question, please do some research. I hope that isn't aimed at me. First off, if it is, Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. Secondly, terrorism is a very strictly defined term and does not preclude insurgency movements from also being terrorists. I presune you are in fact responding to the op.

Also, the OP nor I ever mentioned Afghanistan. We simply stated "middle east." So, please do not try to belittle peoples intelligence.

[LeftyGuns]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 02:02)

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01) @1st point: Throwing tea into a harbor is damaging to the economic infrastructure as it was one of the imports of the day. So is conducting attacks on legitimate military targets. That doesn't make it an act of terrorism. I've quite clearly defined terrorism in it's intentional targeting of civilians or other non-combatants but yet again you seem to completely ignore this. So despite your insistence, your analogy does not work. QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01) @2nd point: Are you really going to say that what the Irish are fighting for is terrorism? come on now. It would be no different if a government set up shop and made you run check points and show your id where ever you go. In a word, yes. The Docklands bombing was of no strategic or operational value to the the IRA, for instance. They may have the mentality of a freedom fighters organisation, but the use of terrorism as part of their strategy makes them terrorists, pure and simple. You can argue about the worth of their cause all you want, but terrorism is defined by operational and tactical factors, not by aspirations. The legitimacy of the cause is entirely irrelevant in discussing issues of terrorism. It's a strictly defined concept which is commonly misused by all sorts of people, but strictly defined it nonetheless is. QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01) The fighting of oppression is freedom fighting no matter what tactics are used. Terrorists....they all believe they're fighting an oppressor, but so does a Freedom Fighter. No it isn't. It's perfectly possible to be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter which is why the over-used maxim is so stupid. As I've already made clear, a "freedom fighter" is a political position or mindset. A "terrorist" is defined by the tactics they use. QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01) I can tell you right now, if you were to ask the Soviets during the 80's, the Mujahadeen were viewed as terrorists. Can you? Are you going to turn around to someone whose studies Cold War strategic theory and spout this revisionist nonsense? The Soviets never viewed the Mujahideen as terrorists, partially because they tended not to use such a term in their lexicon and partially because, as the Soviet Union was the aggressor and the Mujahideen did not engage in large-scale attacks on non-military targets , to do so would have been a blatant contradiction and falsehood. QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 01:01) The Soviets were fighting a conventional ware against unconventional people. It's the same war the United States is in right now. No it isn't. Claiming that the current conflict in Afghanistan is the "same" war that was being fought by the Soviets is utterly absurd. The primary aggressor of the current conflict didn't even exist until years after the Soviet withdrawal. It's got the same historical base but it's far from the same conflict.

@1st point: Just because YOU have clearly defined terrorism doesn't make it correct. You're operating on the premise that your definition of terrorism is the correct definition. It is not. Anything that is not two regular armies going to war with each other can be classified as terrorism. If you fall into the category of enemy combatant, you can be classified as a terrorist, a pirate, a spy, whatever. However depending on how you view the situation in the struggle is where the difference is between whether you're viewed as a terrorist or a freedom fighter

@2nd point: see above

@3rd point: You're saying that terrorists have no political intentions that drive them to do what they do? Only the tactics they use are considered as terrorism? Think about how ridiculous that argument sounds.

@4th point: Just because the term terrorist hadn't conjured the same meaning in the 80's as it does today doesn't mean that they don't fit the classification. It goes back to your "clear" definition of the word terrorist which is incorrect. If you need another clarification on what that means, just re-read the first point. Actually I'll just summarize it for you. If you are NOT regular army, but a partisan group, you can fall into the group of terrorist. These same partisan groups are usually fighting for their freedom from an oppressor.

@5th point: You're right, it's not the same. One lasted from December 24, 1979 – February 15, 1989, and the other has lasted from 7 October 2001 – present. The Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets. Mujahadeen means "People who are doing Jihad" that's the literal translation. Here is the difference between then and now. Hang on I'm drawing a blank here....because there is none. Well, one, the name of the organization in which NATO is currently fighting is branded by a different name. Tell me how many victories NATO has against the Afghani Regular Army. Oh yeah, zero, because that's not who we're fighting. Conventional war is fighting the conventional of the country you've just invaded. If you're fighting an enemy combatant group such as "Al Qaeda", "The Taliban", or who ever, it can't be fought the same way you would square up against the Russians, or the Chinese, or some other power.



Bottom line of the whole argument is that if you're falling into the category of enemy combatant, the perception of what side of the struggle you're on will tell if you're going to be a freedom fighter, fighting to get the oppressor, whether it be NATO, or the Soviets, the ruling regime of whatever country you live in, it does not matter. If it's outside the range of regular army operations and you're not sticking to the whole uniforms and clear markings but blending in with civilians when you fight, you can be classified as whatever the power you're up against wants to classify you as. Even though you think you're something else.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

@1st point: Just because YOU have clearly defined terrorism doesn't make it correct.

...Yes it does, if the definition I use is one that's accepted internationally. Which it is.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

You're operating on the premise that your definition of terrorism is the correct definition.

Because it is. Or, more accurately my definition focuses on two particular points that are present in just about every definition of terrorism whilst your definition doesn't seem to come from anywhere logical.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

Anything that is not two regular armies going to war with each other can be classified as terrorism.

No, that's "irregular warfare". Insurgencies are not by their very nature terrorist. Nor are other violent non-state actors. The "terrorism" moniker is applied based on their tactical and operational behaviour. I'm afraid that your "terrorism" definition is based on popular misconceptions rather than on strategic reality or accurate technical use of the word.

Just because the word "terrorism" is extensively misused doesn't make this misuse correct.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

If you fall into the category of enemy combatant, you can be classified as a terrorist, a pirate, a spy, whatever.

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you trying to say here? "Pirates" in the modern physical context are also very well defined- they are individuals and groups who undertake in the capture of commercial shipping for the purposes of ransom or profit. And a "spy" by definition is an agent of a government, not of a non-state actor.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

@3rd point: You're saying that terrorists have no political intentions that drive them to do what they do? Only the tactics they use are considered as terrorism? Think about how ridiculous that argument sounds.

Not at all, which you'd actually realise if you properly read what I was saying. A terrorist does indeed need to have political intention that drives their actions, but what what characterises a terrorist over a freedom fighters is their tactical and operational behaviour as many other factors are shared. Hence why I made the claim that you can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter- because you can. Most terrorist organisations are solely political in their persuasion but there are other motivating factors. Most terrorist organisations also rely heavily on the use of crime; in fact, the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is considerably less blurred than that between "terrorist" and "organised criminal gang". One only need look at FARC or the IRA to see this.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

It goes back to your "clear" definition of the word terrorist which is incorrect.

Is it? care to "prove" to me that you definition, which appears to be borne of absolutely nothing other than your own whims, is right, and mine, borne of years of academic study in defence and security followed by years working in the industry is wrong? In fact, how about a third-party definition- how about Bruce Hoffman's well-regarded definition

QUOTE (Bruce Hoffman)

> ineluctably political in aims and motives > violent – or, equally important, threatens violence > designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target > conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear > no uniform or identifying insignia) and > perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Wait, that's absolutely nothing like your definition.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

@5th point: You're right, it's not the same. One lasted from December 24, 1979 – February 15, 1989, and the other has lasted from 7 October 2001 – present. The Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets. Mujahadeen means "People who are doing Jihad" that's the literal translation. Here is the difference between then and now. Hang on I'm drawing a blank here....because there is none. Well, one, the name of the organization in which NATO is currently fighting is branded by a different name. Tell me how many victories NATO has against the Afghani Regular Army. Oh yeah, zero, because that's not who we're fighting. Conventional war is fighting the conventional of the country you've just invaded. If you're fighting an enemy combatant group such as "Al Qaeda", "The Taliban", or who ever, it can't be fought the same way you would square up against the Russians, or the Chinese, or some other power.

I find it deeply ironic that you go off chasing your tail with regard to defining terrorism, and then define Mujahideen as if it has any real relevance in the discussion. The current Afghan conflict is not being fought by a Mujahideen, it's being fought on two very distinct fronts- one by an organised, armed irregular force with direct external funding, training and technical assistance, and one by ordinary individuals along tribal, partisan or ethno-religious lines. The idea of a "Mujahideen" cannot really be applied in this case because of the lack of definition in the armed conflict between the two distinct kind of irregular combatant. And what's more, the actions of one group in particular (that is the organised quasi-military irregular fighting force with external assistance) extensively use terrorist tactics in their fight; they in fact share all 6 of Hoffman's six defining points for a terrorist organisation. Whereas the farmers who are fighting for an ill-defined purpose (I implore you to read "The Accidental Guerrilla- it explains the complexities of the Afghan fighting demographic far better than I ever could) share perhaps one or two. It cannot be a "peoples army" unless it's a group bound together by at least the same basic aims and ideals, and even that isn't true. Ergo, no Mujahideen.

I seriously recommend you do some actual research into the origins of the Taliban movement in both Afghanistan and Pakistan before you dismiss the Mujahideen and the Taliban Insurgency as one and the same. Because they really aren't and by pretending or claiming they are you damage the credibility of your entire argument.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)

If it's outside the range of regular army operations and you're not sticking to the whole uniforms and clear markings but blending in with civilians when you fight, you can be classified as whatever the power you're up against wants to classify you as. Even though you think you're something else.

Not denying this, but it's the media which classified irregular combatants this way, not the military. As we all know well, the media has absolutely f*ck all understanding of the technical lexicon of any subject and therefore it's definition and the definitions of the individual it uses as sources cannot be trusted. I've already provided what is probably the most accepted definition of defining characteristics for a terrorist, so you can argue your misconceptions of semantics with Hoffman (and for that matter with the UN) rather than with me.

[Toup]

Well, this is one of those subjects that you can't just talk about both sides because you will tend to talk about what you heard growing up, not knowing the entire story of course. The best you can do is talk about the information that's available to you, and, when you call a person a terrorist it's a little objective. These people are, well, brainwashed since birth, same for soldiers who go to war.

For me, patriotism is non-existent and it's just used for acts of "terrorism" and for war. As you said, this is just a big irony.

Hope I made myself clear.