Human Resources. What is terrorist and how does that compare to terrorist? “Freedom fighter” – What’s a more neutral word?
Which were all the great stories of the world? Why not introduce moral equivalence? If a United States were to be liberated for life without any laws or laws of war, then a liberated country would need to be liberated from the laws of the state.
What are some words to use when you want to remain neutral, for example, when trying to communicate with people on both sides of the conflict?
“Rebel” sounds good except that, at least in modern times, I at least perceive somewhat of a (positive) connotation of rebellion against oppressive central governments.
What is the word “Truth” that you use when you want to remain 100% neutral? My
goodness, with the best of will…. ” sometimes neutrality is not possible. – I am a freedom fighter, I’m a soldier, s/he’s a terrorist; I’m religious, I’m devout, s/he’s
a fundamentalist; I know what I like, you’re quite picky, s/he’s
fussy; I’m an artist, you’re expressive, s/he’s
whacko; I live within my means, you’re careful with money,
s/he’s
I would go with criminal.
“It’s just too easy for people to define terrorism in a simple way, but it’s a problem”. Many parties use such words to justify their political positions, despite the fact that they are in their own rights. However they cannot use them in their own identity.
Alex Schmidd is a good proponent of the idea that terrorism is a crime by criminals. He is a comrade in parliament and he is an international expert. On that basis, criminal should cover it if you want to avoid the terrorist-freedom fighter trap.
What is the word “Truth” that you use when you want to remain 100% neutral? My
goodness, with the best of will…. ” sometimes neutrality is not possible. – I am a freedom fighter, I’m a soldier, s/he’s a terrorist; I’m religious, I’m devout, s/he’s
a fundamentalist; I know what I like, you’re quite picky, s/he’s
fussy; I’m an artist, you’re expressive, s/he’s
whacko; I live within my means, you’re careful with money,
s/he’s
I would go with criminal.
“It’s just too easy for people to define terrorism in a simple way, but it’s a problem”. Many parties use such words to justify their political positions, despite the fact that they are in their own rights. However they cannot use them in their own identity.
Alex Schmidd is a good proponent of the idea that terrorism is a crime by criminals. He is a comrade in parliament and he is an international expert. On that basis, criminal should cover it if you want to avoid the terrorist-freedom fighter trap.
What is the word “Truth” that you use when you want to remain 100% neutral? My
goodness, with the best of will…. ” sometimes neutrality is not possible. – I am a freedom fighter, I’m a soldier, s/he’s a terrorist; I’m religious, I’m devout, s/he’s
a fundamentalist; I know what I like, you’re quite picky, s/he’s
fussy; I’m an artist, you’re expressive, s/he’s
whacko; I live within my means, you’re careful with money,
s/he’s
This is a good bet though it varies from who both you and your rebels are. Why does Russia think Syrian rebels have good fight with Syrian Government? Is the Houthis in Yemen a threat for US interests?
What are considered the most neutral terms for the terms “fighter”, “soldier”, or “troop”?
Edit:
After considering disagreements from other users, I’d like to add their point that, “soldier” and “troops” can often suggest members of a state/country’s army, and that “fighter”, quite distinctly from soldier, often suggests they are not soldiers of the state or country’s army, thus delegitimising them and pejorating the word “military”, s/hector, macho?
I agree with this, but I’d like to mention that all dictionaries I’ve checked define Soldier as a member of an army, and that no dictionary I’ve seen necessarily requires an army to be state controlled. On Wikipedia, the army is the military of a state (i.e. government) but doesn’t have to. They isn’t really important.
When looking at the Wikipedia article on resistance movements I noticed an interesting line related to your question:
In the media, an effort has been made by the BBC to avoid the phrases “terrorist” or “freedom fighter”, except in attributed quotes, in favor of more neutral terms such as “militant”, “guerrilla”, “assassin”, “insurgent”, “rebel”, “paramilitary” or “militia”, and the reference on “the movie of the same name is given by the German
I don’t think many
people would regard those alternatives as totally neutral, but apparently the BBC considers them “more” neutral than terrorist or freedom fighter. More specifically terrorist and freedom fighter can be seen as terms of approval or condemnation a writer or writer. The other words are less likely to be seen as such, and more likely to be seen as mere descriptions of the fighters.
What is the word “Truth” that you use when you want to remain 100% neutral? My
goodness, with the best of will…. ” sometimes neutrality is not possible. – I am a freedom fighter, I’m a soldier, s/he’s a terrorist; I’m religious, I’m devout, s/he’s
a fundamentalist; I know what I like, you’re quite picky, s/he’s
fussy; I’m an artist, you’re expressive, s/he’s
whacko; I live within my means, you’re careful with money,
s/he’s
What is the word “Truth” that you use when you want to remain 100% neutral? My
goodness, with the best of will…. ” sometimes neutrality is not possible. – I am a freedom fighter, I’m a soldier, s/he’s a terrorist; I’m religious, I’m devout, s/he’s
a fundamentalist; I know what I like, you’re quite picky, s/he’s
fussy; I’m an artist, you’re expressive, s/he’s
whacko; I live within my means, you’re careful with money,
s/he’s
This is a good bet though it varies from who both you and your rebels are. Why does Russia think Syrian rebels have good fight with Syrian Government? Is the Houthis in Yemen a threat for US interests?
What are considered the most neutral terms for the terms “fighter”, “soldier”, or “troop”?
Edit:
After considering disagreements from other users, I’d like to add their point that, “soldier” and “troops” can often suggest members of a state/country’s army, and that “fighter”, quite distinctly from soldier, often suggests they are not soldiers of the state or country’s army, thus delegitimising them and pejorating the word “military”, s/hector, macho?
I agree with this, but I’d like to mention that all dictionaries I’ve checked define Soldier as a member of an army, and that no dictionary I’ve seen necessarily requires an army to be state controlled. On Wikipedia, the army is the military of a state (i.e. government) but doesn’t have to. They isn’t really important.
When looking at the Wikipedia article on resistance movements I noticed an interesting line related to your question:
In the media, an effort has been made by the BBC to avoid the phrases “terrorist” or “freedom fighter”, except in attributed quotes, in favor of more neutral terms such as “militant”, “guerrilla”, “assassin”, “insurgent”, “rebel”, “paramilitary” or “militia”, and the reference on “the movie of the same name is given by the German
I don’t think many
people would regard those alternatives as totally neutral, but apparently the BBC considers them “more” neutral than terrorist or freedom fighter. More specifically terrorist and freedom fighter can be seen as terms of approval or condemnation a writer or writer. The other words are less likely to be seen as such, and more likely to be seen as mere descriptions of the fighters.
