Talk:SR Combat Organization

Untitled comment
The term "Terrorist" used to describe the Socialist Revolutionary Combat Organisation is loaded, is it not? I'll pose this question before I change it. One person's Terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

The SR's were a revolutionary organisation, and like so many both contemporary to them and currently, the SR's had a agitational/propaganda section i.e. the party, and a subversive section i.e. the Combat Organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.85.114 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Terror isn't a "loaded" term
It's a description of a group's tactics. When the group's own members recognize it as a terror group it seems "loaded" to describe it otherwise. "Freedom fighter" is a more loaded term, suggesting a positive, laudable goal rather than describing a group's tactics. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive and this Michael Moore formulation is a distortion of both terms, not a valid dichotomy. The Stern Gang and Irgun, for instance, could arguably claim both terms. Moore's the one miscasting the terms into "bad" terrorism vs. "good" freedom fighter. Refusing to call a group that uses political assassination as a tactic a "terror" group would be mislabeling - in this case, by the group's own admission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calawpro (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)