"Terrorism" and "Freedom Fighters"

[Tsar Brodsky]

So, I was reading We by Yevgeny Zamyatin and it sparked an interesting question for me while I was writing a paper about it. Is there a difference between those who have been labeled "terrorists" and those labeled "freedom fighters"? Is there a difference between "terrorism" and fighting for ones freedoms/rights/beliefs? If so, where do you (or is it possible) to draw a line between the two? Personally, I'd like to think that in most cases there isn't and if there is it is a very fine line. I thought about asking a few friends or whatever, but of course, I'm American and to be honest most of my friends (and Americans) have been made culturally and intellectually retarded by our media and government regarding this particular topic. This forum is pretty diversified, so I thought this would be a good place to post this question to see what people think.

Note: When talking about terrorism I am not referring to 9/11, or Isreal and Palestine, or anything specific. When I say terrorism and freedom fighting I am referring to revolutions and terrorism all throughout history. For example; do you think that actions taken by American/French/Russian revolutionaries were acts of terrorism.

Thanks in advance.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Politically speaking, one can argue that those that kill civilians through intent or indifference are terrorists.

About the question you posed about the independence revolutionaries, one of my teachers once told me that whoever wields the greater terror has the right to call others terrorists. For example, during the American revolution, Washington & company came out on top but had the British wielded greater terror, history would remember the American revolutionaries as a band of terrorists.

[Каие]

Politically speaking, one can argue that those that kill civilians through intent or indifference are terrorists.

About the question you posed about the independence revolutionaries, one of my teachers once told me that whoever wields the greater terror has the right to call others terrorists. For example, during the American revolution, Washington & company came out on top but had the British wielded greater terror, history would remember the American revolutionaries as a band of terrorists.

Perfect example of this is the Algerian Revolution and the Algerian Civil War. In the 50's the Algerian revolutionaries were called terrorists by the French and the west, but they won, and therefore became freedom-fighters. Whereas in the 90's in the civil war the [attempted] revolutionaries lost to the government, and thus are forever branded as terrorists.

But none of this matters, because the word terrorists has been completely bastardised and hijacked by sensationalist media, and idiot politicians.

[The Cobra]

Terrorism, simply is when you consider civilians as "legitimate targets"

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Terrorism, simply is when you consider civilians as "legitimate targets"

Exactly but in the end, if the terrorist is malevolent enough, he can commit the most heinous crimes and get away with it.

Examples:

Nazi Germany - Killed millions of civilians using gas/bombs - Verdict: Terrorist

USA - killed millions of civilians using gas/bombs in Vietnam, Cambodia - Verdict: Freedom-fighter

[Tchouk]

'Freedom Fighter' is a term we should all flush from our collective conscience. It was pretty much made up by the media to easily compartmentalize people into good/evil with a catchy, heart-string-pulling word combination.

[wilting]

Terrorism, simply is when you consider civilians as "legitimate targets"

No No No No. The term terrorism is being given such broad definitions nowadays as to become meaningless.

Terrorism is politically motivated violence against civilians perpetrated by non-state actors or using unconventional means.

'Freedom Fighters' are non-state actors who perpetrate violence against occupying outsider military forces in their own national territory.

They are seperate, but it is possible to be both.

Violence perpetrated against a civilian population by a States conventional Military or a Police force is not terrorism.

Although oppression within a state such as politically motivated imprisonments or killings can be called terror, that is not the same thing as terrorism.

States can however sponsor terrorism or State intelligence or military agencies may engage in terrorism.

Terrorism is secretly planting a bomb in a cafe. A conventional military driving a tank up to that cafe and blowing it to bits isn't terrorism, its' a war crime.

[Furious Mental]

Personally I think none of you have got it right. Terrorism is the strategy of fighting a conflict by terrorising the population. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is perpetrated by a state, although sometimes people use the term 'state terrorism' to emphasise who is responsible. Blowing up a cafe with a tank is terrorism, if the object is to terrorise the population.

[Tsar Brodsky]

No No No No. The term terrorism is being given such broad definitions nowadays as to become meaningless.

Terrorism is politically motivated violence against civilians perpetrated by non-state actors or using unconventional means.

'Freedom Fighters' are non-state actors who perpetrate violence against occupying outsider military forces in their own national territory.

They are seperate, but it is possible to be both.

Violence perpetrated against a civilian population by a States conventional Military or a Police force is not terrorism.

Although oppression within a state such as politically motivated imprisonments or killings can be called terror, that is not the same thing as terrorism.

States can however sponsor terrorism or State intelligence or military agencies may engage in terrorism.

Terrorism is secretly planting a bomb in a cafe. A conventional military driving a tank up to that cafe and blowing it to bits isn't terrorism, its' a war crime.

That makes a lot of sense. But what if, as in We, a group of people within a society commit actions of sabotage upon their government to deliberately create chaos within the state? The group is also aware that their actions will put innocent civilians in danger of death, torture and imprisonment. So, the group commits acts against the state that does not directly harm civilians but are aware the acts will result in innocent casualities. Would you consider that group terrorists?

I don't mean for this to become a question of Utilitarianism v.s. Deontology, the means being worth the end or the means being the only thing that matters.

What do you guys think?

[Furious Mental]

'A state entity cannot be terrorists. It doesn't work that way'

Yes they can, yes it does. Terrorism means terrorising people as a strategy. That is why it is called 'terrorism'. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is perpetrated by a state - such a distinction is arbitrary. One could just as well say that 'terrorism' does not include any act of persons named 'Alan'.

[Captain Jin]

That makes a lot of sense. But what if, as in We, a group of people within a society commit actions of sabotage upon their government to deliberately create chaos within the state? The group is also aware that their actions will put innocent civilians in danger of death, torture and imprisonment. So, the group commits acts against the state that does not directly harm civilians but are aware the acts will result in innocent casualities. Would you consider that group terrorists?

I don't mean for this to become a question of Utilitarianism v.s. Deontology, the means being worth the end or the means being the only thing that matters.

What do you guys think?

No, there's too many things other nations do either in war or to undermine another country's government, and almost all of it will adversely affect the population in some way or another. I'd say indirectly no.

[Tsar Brodsky]

No, there's too many things other nations do either in war or to undermine another country's government, and almost all of it will adversely affect the population in some way or another. I'd say indirectly no.

Excluding nations, what about organized groups of people?

[Garrigan]

I dont actually think you can separate the two. For instance, what do a lot of (perhaps ill-informed) fighters for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda think they're fighting for? Freedom from American Imperialism. They (and sympathisers) would view them as Freedom Fighters.

What about are troops? From the perspective of a poor Afghani, who maybe is sometimes helped out by teh Taliban, and has had his village bombed by a Coalition Plane, who are the terrorists?

Now I'm not saying that those are the correct interpretations, but I really think "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" depends on your point of view, there is a line in the sand. And it depends on which side you're on.

[Bayezid]

@Kasey
Exactly...
Defining Terrorism is difficult, since it depends on the situation and the point of view.

One question: Being a "freedom figher" (form your point of view) and targeting civilians to spread fear amongst a population. Is this not an easier way to achieve a goal then attacking Military targets and eventually take more casulties?

[Sven788]

I think that it depends on through who's eyes you are looking.
Someone's terrorist is another ones freedom fighter....

[Captain Jin]

Actually, wilting put it perfectly as far as an official term or definition for terrorism. There is no internationally accepted definition of the word, but he hit the nail on the head with pretty close to how the US State Department defines it.

The biggest requisite for terrorism is deliberate targetting of non-combatants in such a way to achieve political or idealogical goals.

A freedom fighter fights a guerrilla war against occupying forces, but does so in a manner that lessens collateral damage to the furthest extent possible. I'd also argue that a freedom fighter is someone that enjoys the support of the majority of the populace, thus such coercion through violence is unneccessary.

Freedom fighters are not present in Iraq, most of the insurgents aren't there to throw off the shackles of Imperialism, but are fighting against us, and each other, for their own political or idealogical ideals. Nor do they enjoy the support of the majority of the populace. Thus they turn to terror in order to coerce the population into becoming subserviant or passive. This backfired against them as people began to get tired of the indiscriminate killing the insurgents were doing, and people rose up to help combat them.

In Afghanistan it's slightly different. The Taliban fighters are getting more support from the population because the lack of good governance on the part of the new Afghani government has left a void in some of the more remote parts of the country. The Taliban has returned to those place and while they originally may not have been welcomed it's looked as some governance is better than none. So the Taliban is somewhat similar to Iraq in that they use whatever means neccessary to achieve their goals, yet it doesn't seem they are as quite as indiscriminate. They also have some loyal following in the country, and represent a voice within the country even if it's a minority. So Taliban I'd say has a mix of both terrorist and freedom fighter in there. Whereas in Iraq I see only terrorists.

[rusina]

So, I was reading We by Yevgeny Zamyatin and it sparked an interesting question for me while I was writing a paper about it. Is there a difference between those who have been labeled "terrorists" and those labeled "freedom fighters"? Is there a difference between "terrorism" and fighting for ones freedoms/rights/beliefs?

You're a freedon fighter when you kill people to get your people independent, but if you keep doing that after independence, you're a terrorist.

[Strattios]

A state entity cannot be terrorists. It doesn't work that way, you give it another name. Nazi Germany wasn't terrorists, they still did horrible things.

Another difference is based on those trying to gain independence or have their ideas enforced or allowed. It's who you attack. During the American revolution, the revolutionaries focused on fighting the British army. There was no targeting of civilians who had nothing to do with it (except the British, they vowed to kill anyone who didn't give them support). Then you go to more recent times and look who they are attacking. With things like 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings, Mumbai, various attacks on marketplaces and other civilian gathering places. Those are act of terror as they are trying to achieve their goals by terrorizing the civilian population.

[Boer]

During the American revolution, the revolutionaries focused on fighting the British army. There was no targeting of civilians who had nothing to do with it (except the British, they vowed to kill anyone who didn't give them support).

Actually, especially in the south, both sides targeted civilians suspected of being "collaborators."
Which brings up an other point in this discussion: Are "collaborators" legitimate targets?
If a town aids terrorists are they guilty for helping the rebels and there for do they deserve to be punished by the government?
If a civilian aids an occupying force does he become a "legal" target for the freedom fighters?

How we answer these questions has a significant impact on the terrorist vs freedom fighter debate.

[Holger Danske]

Freedom fighters do not target random innocent civilians, ever!...