terrorism vs freedom fighters

[the Black Prince]

now we have a fresjh batch of civitates ready baked and ready to use the ample minds, i thought maybe its time to restart some of the major discussions in here without some of more noobish replies that often dominate some threads in the mudpit and ethos.

so here goes, freedom fighters vs terrorists.

one iof my major ongoing arguments with people is northern ireland. i call the IRA terrorists, many irish people i argue with call them freedom fighters.

so what would you define each group as and where do the IRA fit in?
personally, freedom fighters are those rare groups of people who fight honourably, they only attack legitimate military targets, and attempt to never endanger civilians. in general, they tend to be resistnace movements inside a country fighting an occupying power or corrupt government. i think the french resistance in WWII would qualify as freedom fighters.

terrorists on the other hand are people who happily strike at any tagret aiming to cause mass death terror and panic among the civilian population in order to force what is often (though not always) a legitimate government to surrender to its demands.

the IRA in my books are most certainly terrorists, as our the various palestine liberation groups. as such i will always be firmly on the side of the british and israeli governments, as there can never EVER be any excuse ofr terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians. terrorists are not soldiers fighting for the freedom of their country, they are murderers plain and simple and should be treated as such.
i tend to sympathise more with freedom fighting groups, though in recent5 times its hard to find such a group that does not resort to pure terrorism to accomplish their goals.

in the northern ireland case, i find it hard to see how blowing up northern irish people is going to achieve anything...

[Tom Paine]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I suppose it really depends on the majority... making the IRA freedom fighters.
And on the PLA et al, the Israeli army is a terrorist organisation by your own definition. They attack civilian targets. But really, I suppose it is whoever you support. but your definition of terrorist and freedom fighter do not always work: what if you cannot strike at military targets? And what of those that sometimes kill civilians by mistake? Where do they fit?

[Nihil]

Speaking as an Irishman of half northern and half southern stock, the IRA has no legitimate reason to exist anymore. It is an organised crime syndicate with pesudo-political pretensions and enough firepower to take over a small country.

Knee-capping teenagers and murdering taxi drivers because of their religion is not a legitimate form of political action. They have bare-facedly milked the peace process dry to get many of their people released from prison and other concessions, and they have given nothing concrete in return. They control the drugs trade in northern and southern Ireland and are responsioble for almost all major crime throughout the island.

These scum do not represent anybody but themselves, and anybody who thinks they do are in for an unpleasant wake up call. Tell the family of Robert McCartney that the IRA are fighting for their freedom. He was drinking in a Belfast pub on January 30th 2005 when he apparently made a comment which got him in trouble with a local IRA boss who was also drinking in the pub with some of his associates.

The heroic republican freedom fighters took McCartney outside, stabbed him in the stomach, slit his throat, and repeatedly jumped on his head until he was dead. His friend also had his throat slit from ear-to-ear, but he survived. The IRA intimidated all witnesses of the murder and sent a "clean-up squad" to the pub to remove evidence.

Incidentally, since the cease-fire, punishment beatings and attacks on minorities such as gays and immigrants have increased in Northern Ireland. Although the bombings have stopped (for now) the intimidation has not, and the IRA are still very much in business, as are protestant paramilitary groups. These groups rule their neighbourhoods through violence and fear, and are by no means on the side of the common people, whom they prey upon.

That is not to say that there has not been wrong-doing in Northern Ireland by both sides. Catholics were certainly oppressed when the troubles began, and the British government has been far from blameless over the decades, with internment, Bloody Sunday and cover-ups and miscarriages of justice to account for.

The Palestine situation is not dissimilar. Without a doubt both sides have been inflicting terrible wrongs on the other, and like in Northern Ireland, in the end only peace-talks and compromise can give any hope of a cease to the bloodshed. Until both parties have had their fill of the killing, it will presumably continue.

These problems arise because of injustices. Ordinary people don't take up arms for their pleasure, they do it because their lives are intolerable. People, on the whole, want to live in peace. Inevitably, when "freedom fighting" organisations do exist, they attract every kind of psychopath, criminal and extremist who invariably try to manipulate the situation to their advantage and subvert the "cause" (I hate terms like that) for their own ambitions. These are all good reasons why governments should not oppress their minorities and create these problems in the first place.

No doubt many will disagree with me, however.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I suppose it really depends on the majority... making the IRA freedom fighters.

I'd disagree, to my mind there is a very simple and straight-forward difference between the two.

If you are a freedom fighter you are fighting for a just cause (IRA still fit) but crucially your attacks attempt to minimise casualties (IRA fail).

To illustrate, the attacks on 9/11, and the London underground are definately terrorism because they deliberately try to indescriminately kill as many people as possible. IRA attacks on London also qualify because while they didn't deliberately set out to indiscriminately kill, they also didn't try to minimise casualties (ie. they didn't really care who got caught up).

French resistance targetted very specific targets and really tried to keep casualties down.

Does that make sense?

[Tom Paine]

What makes a cause just? That is, you mention a just cause: who defines that? The loyalists wou;d disagree with you on the matter of the justice of the IRA's cause. Do we bow to the majority or do we all choose different divides between freedom fighter and terrorist?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

In it simplest terms I suppose most causes are just in that you can at least understand what has motivated it. Maybe (in fact in most cases) not agree, but at least understand.

Mind you, that would probably make all causes just, hmmmmm.

Do we bow to the majority or do we all choose different divides between freedom fighter and terrorist?

what do you mean?

[Tom Paine]

I mean in defining which is which. Do we accept the majority definitions of freedom fighter and terrorist based on the majority definitions of "just cause" or do we argue amng ourselves about it?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

we argue of course, much more fun

anyway, I wasn't aware there are any majority agreed views?

[Dromikaites]

I would say that in order to talk about freedom fighters several conditions need to be met:
1) A part of the population of a country should be deprived of the exercise of the human rights as stated in the UN Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. This condition is important because otherwise we might have to accept that "Pedophile Liberation Front" is a legitimate freedom-fighting group.
2) That part of the population should not be able to fight for its rights in a non-violent way because of the laws of that country or of the actions of the government-controlled forces. This condition is important because otherwise anybody unhappy with the laws passed by the parliament can resort to arms instead of trying to win through political arrangements.
3) It should target only those who are armed or in decision-making positions in which they (the targets) can order armed response against the people who peacefully fight for their rights. This rule is important because otherwise it would be OK to shoot the garbage collectors, teachers, librarians or firemen (because "they work for the government"). Or it would be OK to bomb the people who don't share our political views and therefore vote diferently than us.

I am affraid that IRA, the Chechens, the ETA (Spain), the FARC (Colombia), the White Supremacy groups or the Iraqi guerrillas don't meet any of the above-mentioned criteria.

[Tom Paine]

Would you say that bombing the infrastructure but avoiding killing people as far as possible, including phoning warnings in, counts against 3?

[Dromikaites]

Would you say that bombing the infrastructure but avoiding killing people as far as possible, including phoning warnings in, counts against 3?

Depends on what kind of infrastructure. If its about bombing casernes and police stations (with a phone call for warning in case of the police station, in order not to kill the civilians who have business there) I'd say it's OK. Bombing bridges or railroads in order to prevent troops to be transported might also be OK (provided it is done in a way that avoids cilvilian casualties). Bombing subway stations, hotels, discos or shopping malls is not OK because most of the people who use it are innocent civilians.

[Tom Paine]

OK. So you are saying military/government targets only, and in the case of civil targets you have to clear the civilians. Otherwise you are a terrorist. In a government repressing its people is it even going to be possible to get near those sort of buildings?

[SirLoinalot]

Terrorism is the use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate Governments or individuals in an attempt to achieve religious, political or idealogical objectives.

Whether terrorists use the title of 'freedom fighter' to try and achieve an aura of respectablity is beside the point. If they fall into the above bracket...I can tell you now, they are terrorists in the UK government's eyes.

[Tom Paine]

Actually not so. The UK government would support an uprising or terrorist group somewhere like Iran; it is if it threatens the UK that it suddenly becomes that definition.

[SirLoinalot]

Well, that is the UK intelligence services definition of Terrorism.

Even if we decide to help certain undersirables in other countries doesn't make them any less of a terrorist. They are always terrorists we just like to make up new words for them - insurgents is a popular favourite.

[Dromikaites]

In a government repressing its people is it even going to be possible to get near those sort of buildings?

Of course it is possible, see the French Resistance. It is not easy though.

[Tom Paine]

Dromikiates: During the French Resistance the Germans had to use the French infrastructure. In a nation not under attack, and where you have time to build your own government buildings, it is a lot easier to defend them, especially given modern technology.

SirLoinalot: Does that mean there is no such thing as a freedom fighter? What where the French Resistance and so on?

[SirLoinalot]

Useless - That's what the French resistance were. I think they once blew up a strategically important bycicle or something.

Once the French Government capitulated to the Germans, any acts of violence by French people towards the occupying German forces became acts of terrorism. Justified or not, the dertermining factor as to when somebody is a terrorist is not decided by whether they are right or wrong, rather by what means they use to achieve thier objectives.

Now I think that we would all agree that the French (non)Resistance was a justified cause. But they were still terrorists as far as the British Intelligence community would have been concerned. It's sometimes best to ignore terrorists when they agree with us.

[Tom Paine]

Ah, the beautiful sound of the double standard: all terrorists are evil except those who agree with us. And although the US does not negotiate with them it will still negotiate business with them. What a cynical world we live in.

[SirLoinalot]

Exactly. People become terrorists when they dissagree with us - However I have no sympathy with terrorist being villinised if they attack civilian or non combatant targets. In this case I will glady (but not blindly) jump on the bandwagon.