Freedom Fighter or Terrorist

[teebeeohh]

Every freedom fighter is a terrorist(as in defies the rules of law beyond the scope of normal crime and with the goal of changing all/part of the system) but not every terrorist is a freedom fighter.
I don't think you can use the methods used to draw a line, there are terrorists who try to only bomb empty government buildings and freedom fighters who will stop at nothing because they believe they are right and nothing they do can be wrong

 

[Craorach]

In your opinion, what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Personally, you'd have to judge it case by case.
For example, I think the American government is total evil, trying to put the population in constant fear and needed an 'enemy' to point the figure at. Thus attack and try to 'liberate' the middle east. In this example I wouldn't call them terrorists, rather - freedom fighters.

With the IRA, when the British were chillin' in Ireland, I'd call them all freedom fighters. It's only when the IRA decided to branch out and attack them in their own home would I call them terrorists.

So Escapist, your opinion?
(I'm not a history student by the way, if that's not how the IRA thing went down, don't harang me.)

I'm afraid I am bloody well going to harang you.

I'm not for a moment going to claim that the Irish Troubles were a one sided thing, but people who blow up civilians and terrorise others are fucking terrorists. Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain not only because of conquest in times past, but due to the democratic wishes of the majority of the people who live there.

Both sides during the troubles had terrorists, but they were ALL terrorists, not freedom fighters.. not "loyal militia", they were fucking murderers. . The IRA, the UVF, the lot of them. Whichever side they were on they dragged their "war" through the streets and murdered people who made the mistake of walking down the wrong road, let alone being the wrong religion.

If you want to name them Freedom Fighters, go ask the six year olds on heavy medication because they were too terrified to leave their homes how free they felt.

Fortunately. the troubles are mostly over, and some of those Terrorists realised the error of their ways and became crusaders for peace. But do not, not for a moment, ever forget what they once were.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, firstly it depends on which side we happen to be on.

More technically, the two refer to different things. Freedom fighters are defined by "why", terrorists as "how".

On the other hand, just about every military conflict is going to involve things falling under the definition of "terrorism".

 

[Gottesstrafe]

A terrorist is one who attempts to push their ideas and goals via terror, hence "terrorist". Though I'm sure this terror would have to be pushed on the general populace to apply.


So, for example, the revolutionaries of the American Revolution were not terrorists because they did not terrorize the American people. However, if they did, then they could be truthfully be labeled terrorists.

Thus, a freedom fighter could also be a terrorist depending on their tactics.

But what about British loyalists? Not all colonists were ready or willing to fight for independence, some didn't even want to in the first place or were coerced into it after their "brothers in arms" painted a target on their backs. If you were a loyalist, wouldn't these "freedom fighters" trying to push their political ideology on you and threatening to come to your house to "liberate" your property and "escort" you out constitute terrorism? The British viewed this as civil unrest before it escalated into a war, a modern equivalent would be if the L.A. riots got out of hand and rioters pushed out the LAPD before declaring L.A. a free city state.

And where do cultists fit in? What about Jonestown, the Waco siege, and Heaven's Gate?

 

[Joseph Alexander]

I'm gonna quote Wolverine ""terrorist" is what the big army calls the little army"
thats the general usage, but heres what it should mean "those who attack and say anything to induce fear in a population".

 

[chadachada123]

Terrorist - Fighting to impose an ideology or way of life on a people. Motivated by a want of extreme power over all & willingness to destroy anyone, noncombatants, innocents included, in order to impose their ideology.

Awesome, you perfectly described USA and the recent war. I salute you for being one of the few who actually understands that. Even if you did not explicitly write USA.

Personally, I'd say that probably half of the Taliban in Afghanistan aren't insurgents because of their religion, but are doing it because

a) they need to put food on the table, and the Taliban can easily provide this

b) their land has been taken over by a foreign country that kills far more civilians than the Taliban does

c) one or more of their loved ones was killed by American forces.

The US is creating far more sympathizers to actual religious nuts with its actions. Bleh.

 

[Naeras]

The line is extremely blurred because the term "terrorist" isn't very well defined. And loads of people would like it to stay that way, because then they can deface any activist that opposes them by crying "terrorists". Hell, I've heard people claim the Occupy-movement and the hippies from the 60's were terrorists.

My definition of a terrorist is someone that uses terror in an attempt to push through an agenda, and thus tends to attack non-military targets simply because it's easier and induces more fear than attacking military targets does. However, most of the so-called terrorists in the media actually primarily attack the military because, as Bush put it, "they don't like being occupied". The term gets abused a bit too often.

 

[Final First]

A terrorist is one who attempts to push their ideas and goals via terror, hence "terrorist". Though I'm sure this terror would have to be pushed on the general populace to apply.


So, for example, the revolutionaries of the American Revolution were not terrorists because they did not terrorize the American people. However, if they did, then they could be truthfully be labeled terrorists.

Thus, a freedom fighter could also be a terrorist depending on their tactics.

But what about British loyalists? Not all colonists were ready or willing to fight for independence, some didn't even want to in the first place or were coerced into it after their "brothers in arms" painted a target on their backs. If you were a loyalist, wouldn't these "freedom fighters" trying to push their political ideology on you and threatening to come to your house to "liberate" your property and "escort" you out constitute terrorism? The British viewed this as civil unrest before it escalated into a war, a modern equivalent would be if the L.A. riots got out of hand and rioters pushed out the LAPD before declaring L.A. a free city state.

And where do cultists fit in? What about Jonestown, the Waco siege, and Heaven's Gate?

Well, I just decided to look up the true definition of terrorism in three dictionaries online, so here's the definitions.

Oxford Dictionary: The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism?q=terrorism)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism)

Dictionary.com:
1.
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism)

Obviously, even dictionaries have different views on the definition of terrorism.

As I've always believed, the all of the definitions given are proper, but even just threats of violence as a consequence can be defined as terrorism. So, indeed, if cultists forced people into their cult with the threat of violence, as well as use violent action as a consequence, a cult can be described as a terrorist group.

However, I admit that it does not sound right. It doesn't sound like a fitting definition, but I cannot think of any reason why it shouldn't; unless the definition of terrorism strictly applies to politics and government only.

Also, I'm not denying the fact, but I have yet to ever hear or read about the American revolutionaries forcing colonialists out of their homes or forcing their ideologies. The only idea that was forced was the creation of the United States after their victory.

 

[Eddie the head]

Well it depends if you win and if you write the history books.

 

[the darknees abyss]

i think theres always tow sides to these thing like they think they doing the right thing but i think theey terrorist

 

[MrFalconfly]

Sympathy.

Say for example the frredomfighters in the European Theater in WWII. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's thought of them as terrorists.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Well, I just decided to look up the true definition of terrorism in three dictionaries online, so here's the definitions.

Oxford Dictionary: The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism?q=terrorism)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism)

Dictionary.com:
1.
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism)

Obviously, even dictionaries have different views on the definition of terrorism.

As I've always believed, the all of the definitions given are proper, but even just threats of violence as a consequence can be defined as terrorism. So, indeed, if cultists forced people into their cult with the threat of violence, as well as use violent action as a consequence, a cult can be described as a terrorist group.

However, I admit that it does not sound right. It doesn't sound like a fitting definition, but I cannot think of any reason why it shouldn't; unless the definition of terrorism strictly applies to politics and government only.

Also, I'm not denying the fact, but I have yet to ever hear or read about the American revolutionaries forcing colonialists out of their homes or forcing their ideologies. The only idea that was forced was the creation of the United States after their victory.

It's not really a subject American historians like to dwell on. During and after the war, for instance, it was not uncommon for loyalists in patriot held lands to have their lands confiscated, be beaten, be subjugated to torture (i.e. have their feet nailed to planks, noses sliced open, tarred and feathered, etc.), have their livestock stolen, and have their wives and daughters raped. Most of the time they were just killed though (not just limited to the ones who joined the Red Coats, mind you). In fact, the term "lynching" comes from Col. Charles Lynch of Virginia, who became famous for his extra-legal executions of Tory sympathisers and those who refused to take either side. Otherwise he just had them whipped, sized their property, coerced pledges of allegiance from them, or conscripted them into the military. One of the tenants of the Jay Treaty in 1795 was meant to address this, with the restoration of or compensation for property lost by British loyalists to the revolutionaries a major issue during its negotiation.

While we're on the subject of American history and terrorism, what's your thoughts on John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry? I've had friends divided on the issue, with some calling him an extremist with noble intentions and other decrying him as a terrorist that only served to make an already tense situation worse.

 

[Final First]

While we're on the subject of American history and terrorism, what's your thoughts on John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry? I've had friends divided on the issue, with some calling him an extremist with noble intentions and other decrying him as a terrorist that only served to make an already tense situation worse.

I don't know much about the subject but, I can understand the reasoning behind his actions. But honestly, although I don't think what actually happened caused that much harm (mind, I don't know much about the event so take my opinion as a grain of salt), I doubt it would cause much good if he succeeded. It may sound extreme, but if he succeeded it may have caused another type of cultural divide in which a portion of the former-slaves may wish to enslave the whites.

It also would not have made a change in the law unless he managed to amass a large enough "army" of followers to effectively fear the state governments or the federal governments into illegalising slavery. However, this might just cause the Civil War to begin early, with slight differences in who started it.

To sum it up, I agree with those who say that his actions were extreme with noble purposes. I just don't see how it could have helped the situation, at least without great bloodshed, which happened anyway.

Correct me on any of this if I'm wrong.

 

[devilofthemist]

i know there aren't really clear lines but, i would say if you are directly targeting innoccent people purposefully, e.g bus bombings that sort of thing, then you can't be called a freedom fighter, but really it is too big a thing to simply draw a line

 

[HouseOfSyn]

Terrorism is a techniche; a method, not an identity. The Allied forces won WWII using terrorism, and the US revolutionaries were freedom fighters that never practiced terrorism. The modern governments have twisted the meaning so they can paint terrorism as some great evil whilst ignoring the fact that it was the primarily accepted way to win a war up through WWII, and that every one of them employed terrorism.

I'm not certainly not disagreeing but I'd like to know what actions taken by the Allies in WWII you consider terrorism.

 

[Ix Rebound]

I guess it all depends on perspective and how you are affected by the "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

I'm not certainly not disagreeing but I'd like to know what actions taken by the Allies in WWII you consider terrorism.

Probably the mass firebombing of places like Dresden, Koln etc.


Also someone has already mentioned this RE the IRA but those fuckers were killing and terrorizing the protestant population of Northern Ireland before they started their mainland civilian bombing campaign. Sectarian violence (by both sides of the provos) was utterly vile. The Provisional IRA may have been fighting for certain freedoms but they were always terrorists.