To us now they were brave freedom fighters who fought opression. However, they used classic terrorist tactics such as bombing, assasination etc., exactly as today's 'terrorists' do. Why are we such hypocrites, justifying our own 'terrorists' but being morally outraged at other people's terrorists?
2006-07-26 08:30:50 · 15 answers · asked by blah de blah de blah... 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Rubicon 2205: Is that not exactly the same situation as the Iraqis now face?
Guys, don't get me wrong, I grew up in Northern Ireland during the terrorist campaign there, I don't support any terrorist activity, but can we not see that at the very least we have double standards about this?
2006-07-26 08:59:14 · update #1
Such is the double standard of labeling terrorists. "One man's garbage is another man's treasure" so they say.
There are many groups which are "liked/tolerated" throughout history they did many the same things as contemporary groups but ended up being called freedom fighters rather than terrorists.
Just look at the American Revolutionaries. To the Americans, they are great men, but to the English Monarchy, they are traitors.
Another example is Stalin. He was a pretty evil man. He killed just as many Russians as Hitler did Jews, but because he fought on the side of the Allied Powers in WW2, history sees him in a slightly better light.
So to answer your question, there is no reason why the French Resistance should not be labeled terrorists. But remember, labeling says just as much about you as it does about the people you are labeling. If you call them terrorists, you will be in the same group as the Nazis, and that is not a place most wish to be.
2006-07-26 08:40:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
French resistance was fighting an occupational force that entered their country (France) with a stated purpose of expanding its own nation (Germany). Our stated purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan is to stabilize it and leave. Whether that's true or not is a different matter. I admit that both French resistance and Iraqi insurgents can be perceived as fighting for the same cause. However, I reserve my right to call Iraqi insurgents terrorists simply because of the staggering number of their own people they kill indiscriminately on daily basis. The same goes for Hezbollah, Hamas and the others. They are more concerned about perpetuating war than the well-being of their people.
2006-07-26 08:44:13 · answer #2 · answered by shoelace 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well the term terrorist all depends on what side eventually wins. If your side wins then you are labeled a hero, lose and you're a terrorist. All "patriots" have the same thing in common. Whether it's using bombings or assasinations. The early militia's in the United States tarred, feathered and fire bombed public officials homes who were loyal to the British. The Islamic Revoultion was labeled terrorists within their own country until they took power ( although they still are considered a terrorist regime). So the term terrorist all depends on which side you are on and whether you lose or not.
2006-07-26 08:41:07 · answer #3 · answered by cmott84 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To the Nazis they were terrorists but to us they were freedom fighters. I guess it boils down to tactics. A freedom fighter does not as a matter of policy target civilians but goes for what could be considered legitimate military targets. A terrorist actively seeks out "soft" targets, ie civilians, to inculcate fear and horror in an attempt to undermine their enemy's will to fight. I'm sure other people have far better definitions than these but without being emotive that's the best I can offer you.
As for the rest... you have to make up your own mind.
2006-07-26 09:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by sleepyredlion 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "conflict Measures Act" exchange into declared in Canada while some French Canadians began to bomb and kill human beings. many times, French Canadians have not completed what the Palestinians are doing yet fairly have been doing some thing useful. they have build the international's fifteenth best financial device. The Palestinians could do what the French Canadians and Asians (who outfitted a effectual financial device) in Hong Kong have completed.
2016-11-03 01:32:13 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The object of a terrorist is to change public opinion and government policy thru fear and intimidation. Some times it works like in the King David Hotel bombing or the Beruit Airport bombing.
If the French resistance had blown up a restaurants or markets, they would have been terrorists. I believe they generally stuck to military and commercial targets. The Nazis would not have been likely to change their policy because of civilian unrest.
2006-07-26 08:47:33 · answer #6 · answered by Woody 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hi I've just found your question,I promise I wasn't cribbing your idea with the French Resistance. I'd just seen the statistics on the TV and couldn't sleep so posted mine.As for your question, it's all becoming too much for me, I must be getting old, the whole world seems to be going mad, that is becoming the only answer I have.
2006-07-26 11:35:30 · answer #7 · answered by Susan B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well in ww2 they fought on there own land...they where not killing there own people.they fought off the germany who invaded there land. they used those tactics because they had no other way of fighting they had no army so they did what they could.the terrorists we see now kill innocent people.kill people because they are a dif race religion and many other reasons.they kill out of hate.the french fought to get there home land back from hitlers nazi's.if your home land was invavded would you not fight the invaders off any way you could?
2006-07-26 08:38:06 · answer #8 · answered by Lj 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on your enemy. The were fighting against the Axis. Terrorists today are fighting against crowded trains.
2006-07-26 08:33:38 · answer #9 · answered by kill_dog1 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good topic, just what I was looking for.
2016-08-23 02:51:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋