Depending on who writes the history books and dominant newspapers.
DagT
> fra: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> emne: Re: Definitions WAS Re: London Bombing update
>
> the difference between "terrorists" and
> "freedom fighters" (or "partisans", "resistance",
> and so forth) has always been arbitrary.
>
> best,
> mishka
>
> On 7/12/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "cbwaters"
> > Subject: OT: Definitions WAS Re: London Bombing update
> >
> >
> > > In my view Bob, a "freedom fighter" is more of a paramilitary figure. One
> > > who might bomb but would hit a target with some military or strategic
> > > value.
> > > These ***kers bombed non-combatants on the subway/bus. Their action was
> > > intended to cause chaos and suffering among the populace.
> > > Whatever their political goals are, their actions make them terrorists.
> > > While the police may be calling them bombers (which they are/were also)
> > > the Press will certainly not refrain from using the appropriate label.
> >
> > You are taking the western veiw of warfare, which is not particularly
> > realistic.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
> >
>
>
