Go France

[krunchyfrogg]

Now they're naming streets after a Terrorist.

LINK

[Timber Loftis]

A sad, sad thing. I'm sure they'll have to name streets after Arafat eventually -- if only to please their Muslims.

Of course we have streets named after Malcolm X and Strom Thurmond -- and there's no difference. Militance based on prejudice and ignorance is wrong the world over.

Damnit, you just know that the sands of time are going to bury the evils of Arafat somehow -- funny that the only things he ever accomplished will get washed away, and all that will remain is some legacy as a leader and peacemaker based upon anything *but* the facts.

[Jonas Strider]

i'm not for terrorism but his supporters see him as a fighter for their desire to be a free state. having a street named for him in their own area seems right for them but also wrong for the those against him. just remember, our existence now is but a mere drop in an infinite universe. time will pass them and us all by for newer things. change is inevitable.

[Donut]

In Britain we also name streets after terrorists.

There are several "Nelson Mandela" Roads in London.

A mate of mine called Delboy used to live in "Nelson Mandela House" before him and his brother became millionaires.

Then there was that terrorist Menachem Begin who carried out many terrorist attacks against my own countrymen. I'll bet they name streets after him in some parts of the world.

I think there was also a terrorist who has had bridges, streets, capitals, cities, states, memorials and even national holidays named after him.

Just to spell it out to those of you who don't like peanuts:

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's just a matter of viewpoint.

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, Donut, I draw a line in the sand between the terrorist and the freedom fighter. One explicitly and purposefully attacks civilians. Otherwise, of course you're right -- but let me ask who, in particular, was the terrorist who had bridges, streets, capitals, cities, states and national hilidays named after him?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sorry, Donut, I draw a line in the sand between the terrorist and the freedom fighter. One explicitly and purposefully attacks civilians. Otherwise, of course you're right -- but let me ask who, in particular, was the terrorist who had bridges, streets, capitals, cities, states and national hilidays named after him?

That's your line that you are drawing. Begin did attack civilians.

The "terrorist" in question would be George Washington who was labelled as such at the time.

[ 11-15-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Timber Loftis]

I thought you might say that. In my estimation, Washington was correctly viewed as a revolutionary and freedom fighter, being appointed by a legal government, that had given legal notice of independence, to lead the army of the newly-established continentals by his peers, and most importantly by fighting a war against soldiers, not civilians. As an interesting perk for us Americans, he also did a damn fine job taking unsupplied and outnumbered forces and running circles round the Brits. In fact, wasn't it the American revolution wherein guerrilla tactics were first born?

Anyway, I count Begin as a terrorist, despite the party line of GWB (who praised him for efforts at peace).

Don't we need some defining lines/characteristics on this issue? Or do we just go with the whims of what our politicians feel like calling someone?

For my part, picking up civilians and beheading them on TV, bombing schools, bombing churches, etc. is a more debased moral path than many in a hundred years.

[Stratos]

It seems a bit tactless considering the circumstances. Too many people are still alive to remember Arafat.

[Lucern]

Whatever our lines are for discerning terrorist from freedom fighter, I'm not sure the presence of a nation-state matters as much as the actions of the would-be freedom fighter. Terrorism has been defined as violence against the state by non-state actors, which is fine from the perspective of the state. It's the actions, the violence against civilians, that matters imo.

Now, trying to create a state by targetting civilians and specifically inducing fear, I'll call that terrorism. I'll also call it terrorism when a state does the same for whatever purpose, even in apparent defense of itself. We could all think of examples of this I bet.

AFAIK George Washington attacked military targets, which are always fair game, and pretty well defines him as a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a continental upstart [img]smile.gif[/img] . Traitor and rebel would have also been appropriate from the British perspective.

btw, I like that the article mentions the "Communist mayors" twice and it's about 75 words long lol

[Grojlach]

In the same category, let's not forget the inexplicably popular Che Guevara...