there is not a distinction like terrorist vs. freedom fighter. a terrorist is terrorist, and the definition of "terrorist" is so clear. there is rather a distinction of good terrorist vs. bad terrorist.

If a terrorist is in favor of big powers like america that`s called good terrorist, or "freedom fighter" in your words (eg. PKK). if he is not, he is just a normal, bad terrorist. ( eg. Hamas )

btw, I didn`t know the word terrorist was used at the time of Ataturk. I also didn`t know that Ataturk had an organization that killed civilians. I think you meant traitor?

as for Bush and Sharon, they are as much of terrorists as all the others they call terrorists, and yes they should be killed too, but there isn`t such a power that can achieve that.

I dont think your brain is able to cope with the details about the terrorism or who is terrorist who is not or where the border is...(brain damaged by forceful usage oh forceps during the delivery?)

So when it comes to fit what you are told in your own country about terrorism you dont hesitate to pick up the definition from the west..eh?

Freedom fighters in Europe were terrorists according to Nazis for example during WWII.

And if the definition of terrorism was used 100 years ago, Ataturk would be called a terrorist too..

"act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorist

as you see, the definition of terrorism is so clear. I don`t think your brain is able to perceive even simple definitions though.

so what this accurate definition tells us is that you can`t name anyone who is your enemy "terrorist". First, he must be engaged in violent actions against civilians.

so can I ask you, genius, why Ataturk would have been called terrorist?

There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism you forcep boy.

Check it everywhere..

And also,

According to that definition  turkey as a state can be called Terrorist too.. I can give you many many examples where and when and how the state elements engaged in activities which can fit into that definition..

Ataturk could have been classified as a terrorist because he rebelled the Ottoman rule with weapons..

Go and rebel against  Turkey and see what they will call you..

offff

I keep telling you baby genious

"There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism"

Ataturk never formed a terrorist group that killed civilians so he could not have been classified as a terrorist, and If you form an organization that kills civilians it will be called terrorist no matter it`s against Turkey or Mozambique.

you lost this one hairy, and managed to hijack the thread. congrats!

Thread locked because of personal attacks.