Freedom Fighter or Terrorist

[Mr.Mattress]

A Freedom Fighter Does Not Go After Civilians (Well, Unless the Civilians physically go after them). A Terrorist Does. Simple as that.

 

[Joseph Harrison]

A freedom fighter means that they win the war and a terrorist is the loser. History is written by the victors. Also to the Op I find your comment that terrorists in the middle east are actually freedom fighters incredibly offensive.

 

[Pegghead]

Probably a matter of perspective more than anything else, but to my eye there are a few key things that seperate the two.

For one thing, I see freedom fighters as being so wholely devoted to their cause that they take active steps to ensure that the only damage done by them is against those belonging to the organisation against which they are fighting, while a terrorist is so blindly devoted to their cause that they're more than willing to let civilians and even members of their own organisation get killed or injured in pursuit of their goals.

Besides, let us not forget that warfare is not the only way one can fight for their freedom.

 

[Jegsimmons]

-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.

General knowledge is a fact everyone knows, not an opinion like the US government is a terror organization. An organization ran by retards, but not terrorist.

 

[Colour Scientist]

oh and the IRA are terrorist because they attacked civilians in ireland just for having a different religion!, and only attacked the english because we intervened! and showed no regard for any of the rules of war (they even used fucking flame throwers!?!) and thats even before they started planting bombs against english civilians and to even suggest that they were once freedom fighters is very wrong but also very insensitive and not the sort of thing to say at all to almost anyone British.

it would be like me calling al qeada freedom fighters while in america

You don't actually know very much about Irish history, do you? You can admit it, it's okay. Just don't pretend otherwise.

 

[HouseOfSyn]

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.

By the same hand: The bombing of major British cities and the use of the V1 and V2 rockets could also be considered acts of terrorism. Yes - In a war such as WWII the bombing of civilian populations was used to demoralise and intimidate the population into surrender but I wouldn't define that as terrorism. More terror, via an act of war, during a war.

 

[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.

Of course people are going to use the IRA as a catch all term, few will say:

"I hate those fuckers in the RIRA, CIRA, PIRA but not the IRA, I think their actions were more respectable". It's too much hassle for most people. Most likely there are more IRA's but those are the most prominent ones I see sprayed around.

Well then don't just say I hate the IRA it is still a wrong statement. Just say I hate the IRA splinters. Not really that hard to add one extra word and would make the statement much more correct, valid and relevant. I don't that is too much to ask is it?

 

[BristolBerserker]

Considering that Ulster voted to stay part of the UK and the various IRA splinter groups fought against the idea of democratically staying put so they are terrorists.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

The name is usually decided by whoever wins the conflict and who writes about the event isn't it?

 

[spartan231490]

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.

By the same hand: The bombing of major British cities and the use of the V1 and V2 rockets could also be considered acts of terrorism. Yes - In a war such as WWII the bombing of civilian populations was used to demoralise and intimidate the population into surrender but I wouldn't define that as terrorism. More terror, via an act of war, during a war.

This is exactly what I was talking about. The government is trying to make terrorism mean something it doesn't. Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic used to win a war via intimidation. Do you really think that the IRA, Al Queda, ect, don't consider what they are doing to be a war? I for one, will not lose sight of the true meaning of terrorism, nor will I forget that in their situation, I might be doing the exact same thing as these "terrorists".

 

[bobmus]

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.

What the remnants of the IRA went on to do will always affect their image. I can't say I support their original cause (especially as a British citizen), but the original IRA weren't as destructive as our modern day interpretation of a terrorist entails. Though they set fire to public buildings and the like, they never went out of their way to attack civilians, which in my view is the mark of a terrorist. However, this was in the 1920s, so the availability of bomb-making tools was presumably much less than it is today, so it is hard to tell if they would have used such scaremongering tactics if they could've done.

 

[HouseOfSyn]

This is exactly what I was talking about. The government is trying to make terrorism mean something it doesn't. Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic used to win a war via intimidation. Do you really think that the IRA, Al Queda, ect, don't consider what they are doing to be a war? I for one, will not lose sight of the true meaning of terrorism, nor will I forget that in their situation, I might be doing the exact same thing as these "terrorists".

I'm with you there - I enjoy playing the devils advocate and this came straight to mind:

"...this word would become a plague, a meaningless punctuation mark in all our lives, a full stop erected to finish all discussion of injustice, constructed as a wall by Russians, Americans, Israelis, British, Pakistanis, Saudis, Turks, to shut us up. Who would ever say a word in favour of terrorists? What cause could justify terror? So our enemies are always 'terrorists'. In the seventeenth century, governments used the word 'heretic' in much the same way, to end all dialogue, to prescribe obedience ..."

From The Great War for Civilisation by Robert Fisk.

I recommend that book highly.