Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6736030" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm one of those weirdoes that insists that though one man's terrorist may be called by another guy a freedom fighter, they are actually only freedom fighters if they are fighting for freedom.&nbsp; Thus, you can claim you are fighting for your homelands freedom all you like, but if you actually prioritize murdering patriots that don't follow your lead over say fighting the invader, or if you actually welcomed the invasion and occasionally insist the invaders because only through the invasion did you have any hope of claiming power, or if the first thing you do upon taking power is engage in a democidal purge, I'm never ever going to recognize you as a freedom fighter no matter what you claim.&nbsp; I'll grant you that you are a revolutionary.&nbsp; I'll grant you that you are a patriot (of a sort).&nbsp;&nbsp; But no way am I going to describe that as a 'freedom fighter'.Actual historical cases in point forgone to avoid controversy.Again, unless the old regime was actually liberty loving and he wants to restore it, I don't credit the idea that this reactionary terrorist aristocrat is actually entitled to be called a freedom fighter.&nbsp;&nbsp; See my above discussion of the strangeness of fighting for a cause you are loyal to, but ultimately don't believe in.&nbsp; Even if the former society was freedom affirming, I'd more likely expect this reactionary LE deposed aristocrat to see the weakness, folly and decadence of that former culture proved by its defeat and regardless of how he rallied his troops around his banner with patriotic talk and declarations, his actual ambitions would be very far indeed from spreading freedom.&nbsp; Remember, even if you define &quot;Freedom Fighter&quot; in some tortured fashion to mean something other than &quot;affirming the value of liberty&quot;, you've conceded my point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6736030, member: 4937"] I'm one of those weirdoes that insists that though one man's terrorist may be called by another guy a freedom fighter, they are actually only freedom fighters if they are fighting for freedom. Thus, you can claim you are fighting for your homelands freedom all you like, but if you actually prioritize murdering patriots that don't follow your lead over say fighting the invader, or if you actually welcomed the invasion and occasionally insist the invaders because only through the invasion did you have any hope of claiming power, or if the first thing you do upon taking power is engage in a democidal purge, I'm never ever going to recognize you as a freedom fighter no matter what you claim. I'll grant you that you are a revolutionary. I'll grant you that you are a patriot (of a sort). But no way am I going to describe that as a 'freedom fighter'. Actual historical cases in point forgone to avoid controversy. Again, unless the old regime was actually liberty loving and he wants to restore it, I don't credit the idea that this reactionary terrorist aristocrat is actually entitled to be called a freedom fighter. See my above discussion of the strangeness of fighting for a cause you are loyal to, but ultimately don't believe in. Even if the former society was freedom affirming, I'd more likely expect this reactionary LE deposed aristocrat to see the weakness, folly and decadence of that former culture proved by its defeat and regardless of how he rallied his troops around his banner with patriotic talk and declarations, his actual ambitions would be very far indeed from spreading freedom. Remember, even if you define "Freedom Fighter" in some tortured fashion to mean something other than "affirming the value of liberty", you've conceded my point. [/QUOTE]

Verification