Freedom Fighter or Terrorist

[bz316]

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.

I thought "terrorists" used "terror" against their enemies. So while revolutionaries didn't terrorize the American populace, which would've made no sense, they did tar and feather British government officials and what not so I'm sure the British would've saw them as something like what would be termed "terrorists."

I never considered that. I assume terror to both their enemies and those whom they're trying to "convince" to their side via terror.

Though I'm still not completely convinced that the revolutionaries in the American Revolution were terrorists. Don't get me wrong, it's not because I'm American, it's because they didn't have terrorist intentions. Sure, some did in fact tar and feather British officers and officials, but that was an attempt at punishment during war. Although some may have intended for those events to terrorize the British, I doubt many did.

EDIT: Fixed grammatical mistakes.

This is an interesting debate, but let me put forward this point: during the revolution, colonial soldiers, often under the command of their superior officers, frequently plundered and stole from locals. This was primarily from "Loyalists" (technically they were Americans at this point though, even if they didn't believe in the cause), but this was also done to neutrals and occasionally even "Patriots". With the loyalists, the soldiers would often kill them and/or destroy their homes and property as a warning. Keep in mind these were people who, under the terms of what the new congress claimed jurisdiction over, were considered to be Americans, i.e. the revolutionaries own people. I would certainly say that even if the revolutionaries weren't "terrorists" per se, they at least did some terrorist-esqu things.

 

[bz316]

Well for starters, Freedom Fighters are anthropomorphic woodland creatures:

....you win. You've won this message thread. Well done!

 

[bz316]

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.

John Brown was probably correct in his assertions that slavery in the US could only be ended by force of arms. However, he was not the man to do it. If he had been wiser, he would have waited and found someone with actual military/guerilla war experience and planned it out better. As it was, he just got himself and a bunch of other people hanged, and the only person his band succeeded in killings was actually a freed African American just minding his own business. I'd hesitate to call him anything other than "grossly incompetent."

 

[Redingold]

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can fight for freedom by using terror tactics.

If you insist on drawing a false dichotomy, then the moment innocent civilians are intentionally killed is where a freedom fighter becomes a terrorist.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

and the only person his band succeeded in killings was actually a freed African American just minding his own business.

Check your sources, there were at least two more separate raids and he killed at least 5 in one of the others. Also it wasn't as if he failed to kill anymore than the freedman on the train, for unknown reasons, he let it pass through.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Those are the same things, it just depends which side you like and which side you don't.

And to those saying that freedom fighter follow the rules of war, you couldn't be more wrong.
First of all, there are no rules of war.

When was the last time that you heard of an American general going to court for the war in the Middle East? You hear many times x civilians killed by the US army bombing imaginary terrorists.
You see many videos of US military doing shit to children and the dead.

Only the weak follow "the rules", which are there so that the strong can still be strong and control the weak and prevent them from getting stronger.

Why is no one allowed to have nuclear and biological weapon... except the USA, Russia and China?

So yea, rules of war DON'T exist.

Second, if someone is a freedom fighter, they are ALWAYS at a HUGE disadvantage. They can't play the game like gentlemen and have a duel at 12 o'clock.

They have to play dirty, else they would have no way of winning.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

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

very rarely do your choices define what you are, it is history that stands as the judge and the victor can always spin the facts in whatever way they deem fit

that being said, i think the difference between the two is motivation

freedom fighters fight against injustice and strive to lift oppression and give freedom to those who are not free

terrorist kill for the sake of killing or because they cannot tolerate another group

in my opinion, terrorist tend to fight to create more bloodshed in the hopes that when the dust settle they will be the only ones left while freedom fighters want fight for equality and want everybody to be around when the dust settles, just without anybody's boot on another person's neck

 

[ElPatron]

DO you guys know why the UN never got to a consensus when it came to defining "terrorism"?

Because no matter the definition one or more of it's members would have to be considered a terrorist.

By the way, a freedom fighter does not attack civilians.

The IRA and the Taliban do not apply.

And to those saying that freedom fighter follow the rules of war, you couldn't be more wrong.
First of all, there are no rules of war.

You're taking things literally.

Freedom fighters and terrorists do not usually use "conventional warfare" methods.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Spoiler

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Yay another thread where the intricacies of Irish history and many, many, many splinters of the IRA are brought up horribly misused and butchered. I think mentioning the IRA should really be banned or at least cautioned not to on this forum has most people do not know what they are talking about. They also think the IRA is a catch all for every organisation to have the initialism IRA in their name.

For people not bothered to use Google and this goes to everyone in the spoiler this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army] is the IRA. The IRA was a freedom fighting insurgency force or at least one of the closest examples you can get to it. The Anti-Treaty IRA and the many other splits such as the Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA and Official IRA could easily be described as terrorists in societal views.

Learn which group you are talking about it is like referring to all Playstations simply as Playstation and then complaining that your Playstation doesn't have backwards compatibility or a hard drive because another Playstation has backwards compatibility or a hard drive. See how little sense that last paragraph made?

Just to say I am not saying you are wrong in your opinion of the various splinter groups that claimed to be so after the true original group ceased to be. You just can't go calling them all the IRA as a catch all term as they are not all The IRA. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

firebombing of dresden.
hiroshima.
nagasaki.
firebombing of tokyo.

These were attacks against civilians, designed to intimidate the populace into pressuring the governments into surrender. That's terrorism.

 

[Sougo]

Freedom Fighter - Fighting for a cause, usually against government oppression or group oppression from a larger power. Often motivated by land disputes, a want to self-govern, or simply live without fear of foreign intervention or invasion.

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.

The problem with my approach: the lines blur too damn much on who's who in this case & it boils down to doesn't shoot at me first. And often it becomes a battle of who's got better propaganda.

Haha
You know. By that definition of terrorist, wouldn't you classify the US government as terrorists?

 

[Sougo]

Terrorist is somewhat easy to define being someone who use terror for political goals. I would also say that that they are required to be in a some type of organised political movement. 9/11 was terrorism, Brevik (that Norwegian chap) was not. Governments are never terrorists but can use terror tactics and do.

What this implies is that if Bin Laden was part of the government of Afghanistan (or any other country), then 9/11 wasn't terrorism.

 

[370999]

Terrorist is somewhat easy to define being someone who use terror for political goals. I would also say that that they are required to be in a some type of organised political movement. 9/11 was terrorism, Brevik (that Norwegian chap) was not. Governments are never terrorists but can use terror tactics and do.

What this implies is that if Bin Laden was part of the government of Afghanistan (or any other country), then 9/11 wasn't terrorism.

Yep. Similar to say Hiroshima not being terrorism. I'm weird though it that I don't attach morality to the term, it simply is an act of political terror done by an non-state actor.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

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.

Someone has already mentioned his previous activities in Kansas, so I won't reiterate them. As for his raid on Harpers Ferry, I tend to agree with the side calling him a terrorist. His plan essentially boiled down to raiding a federal armory, murdering slave owners and their families in their sleep, recruiting the now freed slaves into his army, and cutting a bloody swath southwards. Noble intentions or not, I can't really call someone a freedom fighter when their plan involves deliberately targeting civilians to send a message. What's worse is that his raid and the subsequent celebration of him as a martyr for abolitionism scared the sh*t out of the south, which promptly militarized themselves in preparation for another abolitionist attack.

Looking back at it though, if this was his intention in the first place as opposed to just starting a slave revolt, it was a stroke of genius. He had correctly predicted that the only way to finally end slavery would be the result of bloodshed, and his actions served to further polarize the already fragile bond holding the union together to the point that the southern Democrats seriously considering seceding.

 

[A.A.K]

-snip-

-snip-

and just for everyone else, I'm not a modern history student and never have been. It was just an example based off the most general knowledge that I have.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Interesting that this topic pops up today. I saw "The Wind that Shakes the Barely" about a month ago and started reading all I could about the IRA and British military atrocities.

 

[Blobpie]

There is no difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

The french resistance in WW2 are commonly held as freedom fighters, despite the fact that they deliberately targeted the families of Nazi sympathizers.

History is written by the victors after all.

 

[I Have No Idea]

I've actually seen this question raised with the recent trailer for Rainbow Six Patriots. A lot of people are thinking Ubisoft is branding any sort of freedom fighting as terrorism, since the True Patriots are the bad guys in the game. It's pissed of a good many. Problem is, freedom fighting is fighting for a cause, sometimes with violence but never against civilians, that can change a nation and its people. Terrorism is either motivated by two things: money, or a misplace ideology that brands anyone who doesn't share your views as the enemy. Civilians, soldiers - all are fair game in the world of terrorism.