4 British Neo-Nazis Arrested

[NotAllThere]

I know very well the point he and you are making, and I'm afraid you're quite wrong.

You can keep telling yourself that and arguing the toss but it won't make your right, nor your arguments logically well-found. Most of what you post is utter drivel, and what isn't shows you up as a xenophobic, abhorrent buffoon. You are also very very dull.

In this instance, ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy, since your puerile attempts at logical argument are part and parcel of your obnoxious personality. HTH.

[darmstadt]

You can keep telling yourself that and arguing the toss but it won't make your right, nor your arguments logically well-found. Most of what you post is utter drivel, and what isn't shows you up as a xenophobic, abhorrent buffoon. You are also very very dull.

In this instance, ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy, since your puerile attempts at logical argument are part and parcel of your obnoxious personality. HTH.

Stop terrorising him

[excon]

I know very well the point he and you are making, and I'm afraid you're quite wrong. You see, the free tibet movement was considered a terrorist organisation by the chinese government, the ANC were definitely considered a terrorist organisation by the United States. In fact, they were only removed from the terror watch list in 2008. Therefore, your assertion about not being considered a terrorist organisation "either immediately or with the passage of time" is wholly incorrect.

I'm making the point that any group or organisation being labelled as "terrorist" entirely depends upon the angle that you're viewing it from. The free tibet movement may not have been considered by the international community as a "terrorist" organisation, but it certainly was considered a "terrorist" organisation by the chinese government. The KKK have only recently started to be branded as "terrorist" but for a long time, even amongst those in the US that didn't agree with the KKK, they weren't "terrorists", they were simply intolerant nut jobs.

If I'm Chinese and the Chinese government tell me that the free tibet movement is a "terrorist" organisation even though the international community don't agree, are they a "terrorist" organisation?
If I'm Northern Irish and the UK government tell me that the UVF are a "terrorist" organisation, but my own local people tell me that the IRA are the "real" terrorists, who is right?
If I'm English and my own government, just this year, has formed an alliance with a political party regarded by some as a "terrorist" organisation (or a front for such) (but whom the UK government would never call a terrorist organisation), are they a terrorist organisation or not?

You see, it's never black and white is it? And it entirely depends upon which side of the particular fence you come down on as to who are or who are not "terrorists". Therefore, my original statement still stands and is entirely correct.

Absolutely 100% correct, but don't expect a detailed point by point rebuttal of facts, just more mud will be slung your way for thought crime.

[NotAllThere]

Absolutely 100% correct, but don't expect a detailed point by point rebuttal of facts, just more mud will be slung your way for thought crime because that would mean your trolling has succeeded.

FTFY

[northernladyuk]

Absolutely 100% correct, but don't expect a detailed point by point rebuttal of facts, just more mud will be slung your way for thought crime.

The fact that the word 'terrorist' is routinely applied incorrectly for political purposes does not mean that the term is indistinguishable from the term 'freedom fighter'.

Look to the meanings of the terms and then apply them. Start with Al Qaeda and Tibetan monks come then go from there.

Like many clichés, you are not meant to take it literally. But it is useful from time to time to make up thing a moment.

[excon]

The fact that the word 'terrorist' is routinely applied incorrectly for political purposes does not mean that the term is indistinguishable from the term 'freedom fighter'.

Look to the meanings of the terms and then apply them. Start with Al Qaeda and Tibetan monks come then go from there.

Like many clichés, you are not meant to take it literally. But it is useful from time to time to make up thing a moment.

I'm sorry but the words freedom fighter and terrorist are entirely subjective, to say otherwise then there would have to be a strict rule of conduct for war followed by freedom fighter and not terrorist.

Easy example, the American revolution surely a widely accepted example of freedom fighter, both sides of the Atlantic in 2017? Then how come they murdered in cold blood 99 Lenape Indians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenhutten_massacre

[NotAllThere]

"Terrorist" or "freedom fighter" is a false dichotomoty. In some instances it is true that one side identifies a group as terrorist and the other side identify the same group as freedom fighters - you contend this is always the case. Well it isn't, because:

1. Not all terrorists are fighting for anyone's freedom.
2. People fighting for freedom may also be terrorists
3. Not all people labelled terrorists have ever used the tactics of terror.
4. Not all people labelled terrorists are freedom fighters
5. No all people who are freedom fighters have ever used the tactics of terror.

The statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is
a) just a saying, indicating a sometime political reality, rather than an objective truth and
b) often used by the morally bankrupt to excuse the use of terrorist tactics.

This b) is what SillyBiro is doing. Trying to create a moral subjectivism where there isn't one.

[excon]

"Terrorist" or "freedom fighter" is a false dichotomoty. In some instances it is true that one side identifies a group as terrorist and the other side identify the same group as freedom fighters - you contend this is always the case. Well it isn't, because:

1. Not all terrorists are fighting for anyone's freedom.
2. People fighting for freedom may also be terrorists
3. Not all people labelled terrorists have ever used the tactics of terror.
4. Not all people labelled terrorists are freedom fighters
5. No all people who are freedom fighters have ever used the tactics of terror.

The statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is
a) just a saying, indicating a sometime political reality, rather than an objective truth and
b) often used by the morally bankrupt to excuse the use of terrorist tactics.

This b) is what SillyBiro is doing. Trying to create a moral subjectivism where there isn't one.

This is getting a little deep for an internet forum.

Morality is relative not absolute, and entirely subjective.

https://www.quora.com/Is-morality-ab...r-relative-Why

Any of the categories you mentioned, to place any particular act or organisation in any category is down to personal opinion nothing more.

[tiggat]

Rigid caste system. Like modern day India?
Serfdom. Like Bhutan pre-1959?
Capital & Corporal Punishment. Like modern day USA or UK pre-1965?

Are all those places terrorist too?

So the wrongs of the three countries you've cited justify your original statement :

Don't forget, members of the free Tibet movement were considered "terrorists" by the Chinese government.

I suppose you're going to tell me that a bunch of Buddhist monks silently and non-violently protesting against Chinese invasion and rule are a threat to world peace?

??

[SueEllen]

This is getting a little deep for an internet forum.

Morality is relative not absolute, and entirely subjective.

https://www.quora.com/Is-morality-ab...r-relative-Why

Any of the categories you mentioned, to place any particular act or organisation in any category is down to personal opinion nothing more.

Why are you quoting an internet question and answer site?

If you want to be taken seriously at least post from an article from a Social Science journal/magazine/book, or article in a newspaper written by an academic in the relevant subject.