is another man's freedom fighter.

Since the U.S. Election is drawing close I figure it's time for something completely different if this particular subject hasn't been done to death before. In another thread some how the I.R.A and the Troubles came up briefly and it reminded me about a mental debate I've had with myself more then a few times. What is the difference between a rebel/freedom fighter and a terrorist? Clearly there's a lot of similarities between the two, but we tend to try to distinguish between them. Not every rebellion can be as out in the open as the Libyans or the Syrians, in tightly controlled areas, blending with the populace, guerrilla warfare, operating in tightly controlled small units with high operational security, etc are all that's standing between you and certain, imminent and painful death. The situation's similar for the terrorist who except in rare cases cannot operate in the open without dying in a hurry.

One can eventually become the other as well. I won't claim to be an expert or even properly knowledgeable on the Troubles, but it seems to me with my limited knowledge that over time, the IRA in it's various incarnations went from freedom fighters/rebels to terrorists, which leads me to my major difference between a rebel and a terrorist. The former does not intentionally kill civilians*. Police, Military, targets that you can reasonably call "legitimate". The terrorist meanwhile will engage the soldier and police officer, but more often then not prefers to attack the civilian.

How do you differentiate between the two, if you in fact do?


Pictured: British Army EOD dealing with some terrorist's equinegak in Belfast.

*Collateral damage happens in all forms of warfare, that is not in question.

For me it seems like the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is whose side the observer is on.

The US hates terrorists, but we love to support revolutionaries and freedom fighters. It just depends on the question " do we support who they are fighting against".

I think it boils down to whether or not the people who the fighter is fighting for have a legitamate reason to react that way. In the Irish case I don't really think they did, as the 6 counties democratically decided to stay in the United Kingdom. The catholics weren't being prosecuted, and they certainly weren't being oppressed. I could also say that once the freedom fighters switch from financial support from the populace to drug running in order to fund their operations they are on the terrorist side of the line.

I would go with what you target. Are you intentionally killing civvies or do you try to avoid them?

It depends on a lot of things I think... The perspective of the observer being just one.

I think the distinction should be along the lines of this:

If the majority of the general population are behind them, they're freedom fighters, therefore, as the population support their actions, they are generally going to avoid targetting them. The French resistance in WW2 is one I would put in this category. But freedom fighters need to stay aware that the more collateral damage is caused, the more the population will begin to drift away from their cause, those that ignore that could lead them to the terrorist category.

A terrorist would be one of a minority of the population, most of the public being against them in the first place; the Taliban being one example here. The majority (I think) of Afghanis disagree with the Taliban, and so, because of that, the Taliban are not against targetting them to further their own ends. As most of the public disagree, the public become targets.

This willingness to target the civilian population, as well as the mood and views of the population itself is probably the main distinction. Although as noted, the views of the observer is a big bias. The occupying Germans in WW2 would probably have considered the French resistance closer to terrorism than we would now with the benefit of hindsight and the view that they were the "bad guys". Likewise, the Taliban supporters in the Afghan population would consider their actions to be acceptable, and the Taliban being the "good guys" .

It's a fine line really, and perspective plays a big role.

Good thread BTW KM

I have as always, drawn a firm line in the sand and decided that if anyone uses violence then they are in the wrong.

So I don't differentiate between the two, pretty much ever.

If you feel an enormous injustice has been done, then never ever shut the feth up about it. Protest, demonstrate, make signs, write letters, make a website, start a group.

The instant you start blowing gak up, I lose all sympathy I might once have had.

Muslims might have had a point to make, certainly I used to think so regards Israel and Palestine, but after 11 years of gak, my sympathy has vanished like morning mist in the sunshine, and I'm stuck firmly in loathing land.

Now I dont care what the feths have to say, they wave their placards at me and I grin, nothing the write or photograph even grabs my attention and I'm on permanent ignore. If you partake in acts of violence against innocents, I don't care what the cause is.

I know the US has plenty of ill-informed plastic Paddies like Ted Kennedy that like to wax lyrical on the subject of the IRA despite the fact that their words prove the enormity of their ignorance on the subject, and my loathing for them too is absolute.

I feel very strongly about keeping our Monarch for example, but I wouldn't blow up Republics HQ or smash a pint glass in the face of an ardent Republican. If you feel strongly about something, kick and scream as much as you like.. but don't ever cross a line.

I dont blow smoke up peoples arses often, and Martin Luther King had many flaws like all of us, he was a womaniser and a liar, but he never advocated violence and was a man of conviction, so he should be praised.

If Bin Laden, despite everything, rallied his supporters and kicked up a fuss and lobbied and marched but never used violence, then he would also be worthy of praise, but as it stands he is lower than a snakes belly and I am saddened that there is unlikely to be a hell for him to roast in, whilst being penetrated with a spiky Dildo and being forced to listen to Michael Buble records on loop.

I feel this is the incorrect distinction to be drawing. I thing an altered form of Just War theory is applicable to unconventional/non-state warfare and can be applied to determine the validity of conflict.

OBL had no valid reason to wage war on the US. His entire philosophy had him fighting for a cause and a group that didn't exist in the real world, and he enacted violence on behalf of this fictional group for a fictional cause.

Compare this to the actions of rebels in Libya and Syria, who I feel do have a legitimate reason to violently oppose the governments of those states. Even the Palestinians in my mind have a valid reason for what they do. I don't agree with it, but they have a much stronger case for just cause than OBL did.

A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism. How you define terrorism will determine the validity or lack there of for such action. Freedom fighter I think is a broader term.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think it boils down to whether or not the people who the fighter is fighting for have a legitamate reason to react that way. In the Irish case I don't really think they did, as the 6 counties democratically decided to stay in the United Kingdom. The catholics weren't being prosecuted, and they certainly weren't being oppressed. I could also say that once the freedom fighters switch from financial support from the populace to drug running in order to fund their operations they are on the terrorist side of the line.

I should have probably clarified on the Troubles, when I say IRA I mean the original IRA before the treaty during the original rebellion, that devolved into the Provos who's cause was less "just" (unification with the six counties, the crown out of Ireland completely, etc despite NI leaving of it's own accord) and finally came out with the RIRA today who from my understanding are a militant street gang with better marketing.

@mattyrm So there's NEVER a situation under which the use of force is acceptable? Protesting and what have you is all well and good in a society or nation where doing so isn't going to get your head cut off.

@LoH well there is an argument for how force is used, not just if force is used to define the Terrorist, it could be argued, and would in certain schools of thought within the U.S. military, that it's tactics that define the terrorist, I think maybe a mix of your solution and the "Do they murder civilians as a primary target?" question would probably make the more effective judging criteria if you want to keep it as simple as possible.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What is the difference between a rebel/freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Whose side they are on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
whilst being penetrated with a spiky Dildo and being forced to listen to Michael Buble records on loop.

Im sure some people are into that.

I should have probably clarified on the Troubles, when I say IRA I mean the original IRA before the treaty during the original rebellion, that devolved into the Provos who's cause was less "just" (unification with the six counties, the crown out of Ireland completely, etc despite NI leaving of it's own accord) and finally came out with the RIRA today who from my understanding are a militant street gang with better marketing.

Ah, well in the case of the original IRA I would have to say yes and no. Their reason for conducting a war would make them freedom fighters, the way they went about it was somewhat mixed. Many of their operations against the British Army were legitimate. However a lot of their fervor spilled over towards the civilian populace, and that's where I would say they turned terrorist, however they spent the majority of the war and the troubles hovering over the line and periodically dipping over to one side or the other.

To be fair, the dictionary definition does make a differentiation. Terrorism explicitly requires use of violence for the purposes of intimidation in order to further the organisations goals. Freedom fighters will no doubt use violence, but if they are using it to, say, cause damage to vital industries, infrastructure, or military facilities in order to undermine the power of their enemy, but without using violence as a method of intimidation, then they are not using terrorism. They could well still be wrong, of course. In general, I think I agree with Mattyrm's post, in that regard.

To be fair, the dictionary definition does make a differentiation. Terrorism explicitly requires use of violence for the purposes of intimidation in order to further the organisations goals. Freedom fighters will no doubt use violence, but if they are using it to, say, cause damage to vital industries, infrastructure, or military facilities in order to undermine the power of their enemy, but without using violence as a method of intimidation, then they are not using terrorism. They could well still be wrong, of course. In general, I think I agree with Mattyrm's post, in that regard.

All violence is intimidation in one form or another. It may be the dictionary but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the end all be all for definitions. Especially because definitions change with times, as English is a living language.

 AduroT wrote:
I would go with what you target. Are you intentionally killing civvies or do you try to avoid them?

 Ratbarf wrote:

I should have probably clarified on the Troubles, when I say IRA I mean the original IRA before the treaty during the original rebellion, that devolved into the Provos who's cause was less "just" (unification with the six counties, the crown out of Ireland completely, etc despite NI leaving of it's own accord) and finally came out with the RIRA today who from my understanding are a militant street gang with better marketing.

Ah, well in the case of the original IRA I would have to say yes and no. Their reason for conducting a war would make them freedom fighters, the way they went about it was somewhat mixed. Many of their operations against the British Army were legitimate. However a lot of their fervor spilled over towards the civilian populace, and that's where I would say they turned terrorist, however they spent the majority of the war and the troubles hovering over the line and periodically dipping over to one side or the other.

Are we talking about the war of independence 1919-1921/2 or the 'Troubles' 1969-1997? as there is quite a distinction between the actions of both sides during both of these conflicts. Another thing to remember is that to the Irish, on both sides of the border, the English army were the terrorists so its simply a matter of perspective...

 Ratbarf wrote:

To be fair, the dictionary definition does make a differentiation. Terrorism explicitly requires use of violence for the purposes of intimidation in order to further the organisations goals. Freedom fighters will no doubt use violence, but if they are using it to, say, cause damage to vital industries, infrastructure, or military facilities in order to undermine the power of their enemy, but without using violence as a method of intimidation, then they are not using terrorism. They could well still be wrong, of course. In general, I think I agree with Mattyrm's post, in that regard.

All violence is intimidation in one form or another. It may be the dictionary but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the end all be all for definitions. Especially because definitions change with times, as English is a living language.

Granted, but that is the current use of the term. Violence is inherently intimidating, but it is not, in itself, only used for intimidation. If it is: terrorism. If intimidation is not the goal: not terrorism. I feel that the word is being co-opted to mean 'bad civilian violent action' rather than used as it is defined. You can say that this is part of the whole living language deal, but personally I just see it as a misuse. It's too often just used as a buzzword in political debate to discredit the subject it is used on. Once again, not necessarily unjustly, but that doesn't mean that the word isn't being misused.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Ah, well in the case of the original IRA I would have to say yes and no. Their reason for conducting a war would make them freedom fighters, the way they went about it was somewhat mixed. Many of their operations against the British Army were legitimate.

Oh come on, like you can sum up such a complex situation in such a sentence... This is Stephen Restorick.



Stephen was 23 years old in February 1997 when he was shot in the back by a sniper at a checkpoint, he was smiling and talking politely to a Catholic woman when the bullet hit him. Her name was Lorraine McElroy, and she suffered a slight head wound from the same bullet that killed the soldier. Restorick was handing back McElroy's driving licence at a checkpoint in Bessbrook when he was cut down. She held his hand as he died, and was so upset by the event, she spoke to the camera afterwards, I don't recall the exact words because it was two years before I arrived, but I read the story at the time, she condemned the awful murder of a polite young man who was just doing his job, and three days later had to leave Northern Ireland after incurring republican wrath for condemning the killing and sending a wreath to the soldier's funeral.

They turned up at her house and said "You've got 24 hours to get out you Brit loving slut, or you are getting kneecapped"

And thats legitimate?

Young, working class, pig fething ignorant (most teenagers are) lads, who probably know feth all about the troubles and merely joined the Army out of school because they couldn't think of anything else to do, are perfectly legitimate target to shoot in the back and leave to bleed to death in the streets?

The only legitimate target is one that is a clear and present threat to your life, and even then you don't enjoy it, you just do what needs to be done, like putting a sick dog down. I agree with capital punishment but I wouldn't go around gassing people willy nilly.

As always, any post to do with Northern Ireland is nonsense. Their reason makes them Freedom fighters... what, even though the majority of Northern Ireland is Protestant and thus, pro-union?

If 25% of people want to do one thing, and 75% of people don't want it, but then 1% of the 25% start being violent to get it, then it might make them "freedom fighters" to the 24% left over, but it makes them mother fethers to everyone else and the world at large. If you kill young people that have feth all to do with directly making policies and decisions, than Im afraid Im going to think you are a horrible bastard, regardless of the cause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bores wrote:
Another thing to remember is that to the Irish, on both sides of the border, the English army were the terrorists so its simply a matter of perspective...

No they weren't.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I would go with what you target. Are you intentionally killing civvies or do you try to avoid them?

So what about drone strikes then

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I would go with what you target. Are you intentionally killing civvies or do you try to avoid them?

So what about drone strikes then

A few years ago I would have said they try thier best to keep civvies out of it, these days...not so much.

Stephen was 23 years old in February 1997 when he was shot in the back by a sniper at a checkpoint, he was smiling and talking politely to a Catholic woman when the bullet hit him. Her name was Lorraine McElroy, and she suffered a slight head wound from the same bullet that killed the soldier. Restorick was handing back McElroy's driving licence at a checkpoint in Bessbrook when he was cut down. She held his hand as he died, and was so upset by the event, she spoke to the camera afterwards, I don't recall the exact words because it was two years before I arrived, but I read the story at the time, she condemned the awful murder of a polite young man who was just doing his job, and three days later had to leave Northern Ireland after incurring republican wrath for condemning the killing and sending a wreath to the soldier's funeral.

They turned up at her house and said "You've got 24 hours to get out you Brit loving slut, or you are getting kneecapped"

And thats legitimate?

Yes, up until they intimidated the civilian lady for her pro british sentiments. That's when it crossed the line.

Here's the tricky thinking about using civilians deaths as criteria. Suppose your enemy has a munitions plant. Civilians are obviously the ones working in that plant, but destroying it is both within your capabilities and beneficial to the war effort. Is the munitions plant a valid war target, even knowing that if you destroy it civilians will be killed? Likewise if civilians are harboring your enemy, and refuse to give him/her up, do they become a valid target by collusion with the enemy (I'd say no to the later, yes to the former)?

A lot of definitions for terrorism identify the goal as the main criteria that goal being to enact political change through fear. Personally I find that definition to be kind of stupid. War is scary and you go to war to enforce your own political will onto your enemy. I mean what else do you call gun boat diplomacy? You don't park a battle ship in some pesky colony's port to hand out cookies and cream.

I actually sometimes ponder if terrorism is really a thing at all or just some scary word we (and governments) use when it suits us. Terrorism is just a messy word to define because most definitions end up being more or less the same as some other word people find less damning.

Not to say that I think OBL, Al-Qaeda, the IRA, etc etc are somehow legitimate in their actions, I just think that the terrorist thing is something of a useless word that distracts from what actually goes on.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

How do you differentiate between the two, if you in fact do?

Terrorists are aggressive towards people you support, freedom fighters are aggressive towards people you don't support; at least in broad strokes. For example, no government really like Al-Qaeda.

 LordofHats wrote:

A lot of definitions for terrorism identify the goal as the main criteria that goal being to enact political change through fear. Personally I find that definition to be kind of stupid. War is scary and you go to war to enforce your own political will onto your enemy. I mean what else do you call gun boat diplomacy? You don't park a battle ship in some pesky colony's port to hand out cookies and cream.

Agreed completely.

A freedom fighter doesn't deliberatly target civilians.

A terrorist does.

So the real distinction is that one only attacks combatents, the other is either indescriminate or deliberatly targets non-combatents.


Collateral damage is mearely a side effect. So if a bomb kills some civilians, but it wasn't deliberatly trying to do that, then it would not necessarily be an act of Terror.


I think Terrorists also make greater use of IEDs and suicide bombers, while Freedom Fighters will have more man to man fights with guns.

A terrorists only goal is to kill people. A freedom fighter is a more methodical person. He is waging a covert war with the ultimate goal being the establishment of a sovreign state, and views the civilian populace as his fellow comrades. A terrorist only views the civilians as targets that can contribute to the carnage he causes.

I have eaten food that I would consider acts of terrorism. Does that count?

 Frazzled wrote:
I have eaten food that I would consider acts of terrorism. Does that count?

What food is that?

Only if you were tricked into eating it. Voluntarily ordering something you know is bad would fall under Masochism

 Grey Templar wrote:



I think Terrorists also make greater use of IEDs

Eh,
while this term is now cemented in "terrorism" it's a legitimate tool of warfare. I went through basic not long after we invaded Iraq and "IEDs" got big headlines. They handed out slips of paper with material lists on them to our squads to see what we could make out of them. My drill wondered how I identified all of them as specific types of IEDs and how to construct them. So I says, "what you never hunted prairie dogs, drill sgt?" I learned them from a family member who learned them from uncle sam, we have whole field manuals on how to construct them ( or did). The use of improvised devises does not equate terror, see MacGuiver.

Hence why I didn't say Only Terroists use them.

I think Terrorists make greater use of them then a Freedom Fighter would. A freedom fighter might just use them to do an attack on a convoy as the opening salvo of an ambush. Or other conventional uses of Explosive devices.


A terrorists will just lay down an indescriminate IED in the roadway. It doesn't matter who steps on it really. Anyone will do.

An IED isn't necessarily a terrorist device.

Put one outside a military base and blow up their supply truck, troop convoy, etc. Is that terrorism or warfare?

Now put one in a crowded market. Same question.


Edit: ninja'd with the indiscriminate use qualifier. Agreement.

The easy difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is the viewpoint of the winner. However, a less cynical interpretation of the two terms would be that the freedom fighter is someone militantly opposing a government, whereas the terrorist attacks the people being governed.

A terrorists only goal is to kill people.

Then the only terrorists in the world are serial killers. Al-Qaeda doesn't kill people just cause they can. They have a goal. To create a sovereign state where all the muslims can be happy (except the women, their happiness is irrelevant!). Huh, sounds like your definition of freedom fighter. Sure, OBL and Al-Qaeda were apparently in some delusional state where every Muslim in the world knew who they were and cheered them on but that's another issue.

The distinction you draw is fallicious, based solely on a desire that terrorist remain something that is bad while freedom fighter means something you like, when really, neither word really means anything except 'guy who commits acts of violence I disagree with' and 'guy who commits acts of violence I agree with.' The FLN used IED's, suicide bombers, and gun fights, as did the IRA or we can be old school and bring up the Hashshashin (who did establish a sovereign kingdom). How about the Black Hand? All they wanted was an independent Serbia. People would probably be a lot nicer to them if they hadn't started the 1st Word War.

The tactics of Al-Qaeda are fairly standard the world over with independence movements going back to the Sacarii circa Palestine 1st Century. In the end all any definition of 'terrorist' means is 'guy I don't like' and the reverse for freedom fighter.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Only if you were tricked into eating it. Voluntarily ordering something you know is bad would fall under Masochism

I was tricked into thinking it was mexican food, not the culnary equivalent of Stalingrad. Terorr terror!!

Think the definition between a freedom fighter and terrorist is blurred in today age.

 d-usa wrote:
The US hates terrorists, but we love to support revolutionaries and freedom fighters. It just depends on the question " do we support who they are fighting against".

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.


Matty talks sense. The IRA are terrorists and criminals. When it comes to Northern Ireland there's a lot of rubbish spoken, often by Americans who simply don't have much of an idea of what it was actually about. I guess some take it upon themselves to sympathise with the IRA against the evil jackboot of British tyranny as they see themselves as being a bit 'Oirish' because some distant relative might have migrated from there a long time ago. Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there, or what the bulk of people in Northern Ireland actually want.

Che's thoughts on Terrorism, when discussing the key differences between it and Sabotage, from his book on Guerrilla Warfare: "... Terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys many lives that would be valuable to the revolution."

A Freedom Fighter uses sabotage to attack things of military or economic importance to their enemy and weaken the regime. A Terrorist uses force to kill and intimidate indiscriminately in the hopes of weakening the regime, though their actions often have the opposite effect in decreasing support for the terrorist organisation and giving the regime an excuse to increase their stranglehold on power which will be more readily accepted by the people.

The easy difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is the viewpoint of the winner. However, a less cynical interpretation of the two terms would be that the freedom fighter is someone militantly opposing a government, whereas the terrorist attacks the people being governed.

Just as an aside, if the government the freedom fighter is opposing is a direct, or even representational, democracy, does that not make the people the government? And ergo, legitimate targets as long as they are of voting age?

 Frazzled wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I would go with what you target. Are you intentionally killing civvies or do you try to avoid them?

This is wisdom.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The US hates terrorists, but we love to support revolutionaries and freedom fighters. It just depends on the question " do we support who they are fighting against".

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.


Matty talks sense. The IRA are terrorists and criminals. When it comes to Northern Ireland there's a lot of rubbish spoken, often by Americans who simply don't have much of an idea of what it was actually about. I guess some take it upon themselves to sympathise with the IRA against the evil jackboot of British tyranny as they see themselves as being a bit 'Oirish' because some distant relative might have migrated from there a long time ago. Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there, or what the bulk of people in Northern Ireland actually want.

Depends on the IRA you're talking about. I'd say the Rising and the rebellion were justified, and fought relatively honorably. (Source: relatives who fought in it, my family didn't leave Ireland till the early 20th century) it's when you get to the Provos and the struggle to "free" Northern Ireland that things get murky/messy. Especially given that the North democratically voted to remain in the Empire, as I recall there was about a month after 21 or so that not a single inch of the island of Ireland was under British/UK/Crown/Whateverthefethyouwannacallit control.

Who exactly the IRA is provides a similar mess. It can be the original rebels of 1916 or the War of Independence, or it can refer to the Provos/PIRA and their various offshoots till they lay down arms for a final time in the late... 90s IIRC, then the modern users of the name with the "Real IRA" and assorted. This is where it gets into the eye of the beholder and what have you. Having thought and looked into it at great length I'd say the original IRA are freedom fighters/rebels and the Provos are where the line really got crossed because the cause wasn't just (NI wanted no part of the Republic, etc) and the tactics weren't honorable, now you have the criminal scum calling themselves the IRA today which are probably more closely related to the cartels of South America then the rebels they take their name from.

Just .02 cents from a fethhead Irish-American who got more then a few talkings to on the subject from family and relatives. I full admit I could be wrong and biased as hell there. So take that as you will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Che's thoughts on Terrorism, when discussing the key differences between it and Sabotage, from his book on Guerrilla Warfare: "... Terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys many lives that would be valuable to the revolution."

A Freedom Fighter uses sabotage to attack things of military or economic importance to their enemy and weaken the regime. A Terrorist uses force to kill and intimidate indiscriminately in the hopes of weakening the regime, though their actions often have the opposite effect in decreasing support for the terrorist organization and giving the regime an excuse to increase their stranglehold on power which will be more readily accepted by the people.

Che wasn't the saint people make him out to be, but he wasn't dumb either. I think his writing makes an excellent point... especially since it reinforces my own line of thinking.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The US hates terrorists, but we love to support revolutionaries and freedom fighters. It just depends on the question " do we support who they are fighting against".

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.

Think about the history of the United States, then ask again about our opinion regarding nations and people rising up against the throne

Just to chime in myself here: I think that the primary differences between terrorists and freedom fighters has been well discussed.

From the documentaries that I have seen on the IRA, I would say that at one point in time, they may have been freedom fighters, but I'm not sure when they crossed the line, but they definitely crossed the line into the realm of terrorists.


Another good example of Freedom Fighters would be the American's against the Brits in the War of Independence, as we primarily attacked military targets (notably, targeting officers with sharpshooters, which the British definitely didn't like). I'd through in Ghandi with the freedom fighters, even though he didn't fight. Or at least, not with violence.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The US hates terrorists, but we love to support revolutionaries and freedom fighters. It just depends on the question " do we support who they are fighting against".

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.


Matty talks sense. The IRA are terrorists and criminals. When it comes to Northern Ireland there's a lot of rubbish spoken, often by Americans who simply don't have much of an idea of what it was actually about. I guess some take it upon themselves to sympathise with the IRA against the evil jackboot of British tyranny as they see themselves as being a bit 'Oirish' because some distant relative might have migrated from there a long time ago. Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there, or what the bulk of people in Northern Ireland actually want.

I support the USA. All other national considerations rescinded.

I guess I'd draw the line at the whole civilians thing too. Making civilians your targets makes you a terrorist. Killing civilians incidentally - for example workers at a munitions plant, is a much greyer area.

 Bromsy wrote:
I guess I'd draw the line at the whole civilians thing too. Making civilians your targets makes you a terrorist. Killing civilians incidentally - for example workers at a munitions plant, is a much greyer area.

And of course there is always the option of bombing the plant when everyone's gone home for the night.

Doesn't matter if your a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Everyone falls under the Insurgent column. Makes it easier for us on the comms

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I guess I'd draw the line at the whole civilians thing too. Making civilians your targets makes you a terrorist. Killing civilians incidentally - for example workers at a munitions plant, is a much greyer area.

And of course there is always the option of bombing the plant when everyone's gone home for the night.

Hopefully.

Munition plant...there be security....workers in the sotrage rooms....workers at the railhead...

Matty pretty much owned the thread.

I will say that I have a lot of sympathy for the cause of Irish independence and for their right to struggle against the brutalities they suffered for hundreds of years under English/British rule. But it doesn't justify murderous acts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I guess I'd draw the line at the whole civilians thing too. Making civilians your targets makes you a terrorist. Killing civilians incidentally - for example workers at a munitions plant, is a much greyer area.

And of course there is always the option of bombing the plant when everyone's gone home for the night.

Hopefully.

Gotta be careful about that. Even if you never kill anyone, plant a bomb or two and you'll likely be branded as a terrorist for the rest of your life by some. As in the case of William Ayers.

Terrorism can't be defined just by what a person does.

I mean, if we go with the 'targetting civilians' line of argument, that means the UK in WWII were terrorists for targetting German cities in the belief that a high bodycount would collapse German morale. Now, whether or not you think that campaign was moral, calling it terrorism is a nonsense.

Similarly, if the Taliban were to suddenly stop killing people and just start blowing up government buildings when they knew no-one would be in there... they'd still be terrorist donkey-caves because their cause is to enforce horrible religious beliefs over a people that do not want it.

So obviously how justifiable their cause is matters a lot. But it isn't the only issue... take the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka as a case example. Their cause for independance was justified, as the Tamils were an oppressed minority. But the way they went about the war was simply appalling (they invented the suicide bomber, and were famous for machine gun attacks on crowded areas like train stations). While their cause was justified, it simply wasn't worth the killing they inflicted (the issue is then more complicated, because the Sri Lankan government response was just as brutal).

Then there's also the issue of how likely they are to achieve their goals. Groups like The Weather Underground had some sympathetic ambitions, like ending involvement in the Vietnam War, and were non-violent (for the most part). But there was no way their cause was going to produce their result, meaning that ultimately they were basically just dickheads blowing up buildings for no possible result... and that made them terrorist donkey-caves. On the other hand, Mandela's armed ANC wing, the MK, blew up government buildings in much the same way as the Weather Underground, and also had a sympathetic cause. But their cause had a real chance of achieving lasting change, and so can't be seen in the same light as the Weather Underground.

So it's a combination of all those things. This means, of course, that the answer ultimately is very subjective, and I suspect that's what people don't like to consider.

 sebster wrote:
Terrorism can't be defined just by what a person does.

I mean, if we go with the 'targetting civilians' line of argument, that means the UK in WWII were terrorists for targetting German cities in the belief that a high bodycount would collapse German morale. Now, whether or not you think that campaign was moral, calling it terrorism is a nonsense.

Similarly, if the Taliban were to suddenly stop killing people and just start blowing up government buildings when they knew no-one would be in there... they'd still be terrorist donkey-caves because their cause is to enforce horrible religious beliefs over a people that do not want it.

So obviously how justifiable their cause is matters a lot. But it isn't the only issue... take the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka as a case example. Their cause for independance was justified, as the Tamils were an oppressed minority. But the way they went about the war was simply appalling (they invented the suicide bomber, and were famous for machine gun attacks on crowded areas like train stations). While their cause was justified, it simply wasn't worth the killing they inflicted (the issue is then more complicated, because the Sri Lankan government response was just as brutal).

Then there's also the issue of how likely they are to achieve their goals. Groups like The Weather Underground had some sympathetic ambitions, like ending involvement in the Vietnam War, and were non-violent (for the most part). But there was no way their cause was going to produce their result, meaning that ultimately they were basically just dickheads blowing up buildings for no possible result... and that made them terrorist donkey-caves. On the other hand, Mandela's armed ANC wing, the MK, blew up government buildings in much the same way as the Weather Underground, and also had a sympathetic cause. But their cause had a real chance of achieving lasting change, and so can't be seen in the same light as the Weather Underground.

So it's a combination of all those things. This means, of course, that the answer ultimately is very subjective, and I suspect that's what people don't like to consider.

Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Just post Bellum.

Most 'terrorist' organizations pretty much automatically fail two of the above.

Judging from a tv show i watched on torture in US (or us affiliated ) facilities i discovered...
One mans terrorist.... is another mans death metal listener.

Being forced to listen to death metal would truly inspire one to the adrenalin pumping heights of terror, therefore Us facilities using these techniques are terrorist bases.

On a serious note I think most of you are trying to split two hairs on a bald mans head. Trying to define a distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is purely perspective based.

Bullockist wrote:
On a serious note I think most of you are trying to split two hairs on a bald mans head. Trying to define a distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is purely perspective based.

I think he speaks the truth. And very colorfully

 mattyrm wrote:
I have as always, drawn a firm line in the sand and decided that if anyone uses violence then they are in the wrong.

So I don't differentiate between the two, pretty much ever.

If you feel an enormous injustice has been done, then never ever shut the feth up about it. Protest, demonstrate, make signs, write letters, make a website, start a group.

The instant you start blowing gak up, I lose all sympathy I might once have had.

Muslims might have had a point to make, certainly I used to think so regards Israel and Palestine, but after 11 years of gak, my sympathy has vanished like morning mist in the sunshine, and I'm stuck firmly in loathing land.

Now I dont care what the feths have to say, they wave their placards at me and I grin, nothing the write or photograph even grabs my attention and I'm on permanent ignore. If you partake in acts of violence against innocents, I don't care what the cause is.

I know the US has plenty of ill-informed plastic Paddies like Ted Kennedy that like to wax lyrical on the subject of the IRA despite the fact that their words prove the enormity of their ignorance on the subject, and my loathing for them too is absolute.

I feel very strongly about keeping our Monarch for example, but I wouldn't blow up Republics HQ or smash a pint glass in the face of an ardent Republican. If you feel strongly about something, kick and scream as much as you like.. but don't ever cross a line.

I dont blow smoke up peoples arses often, and Martin Luther King had many flaws like all of us, he was a womaniser and a liar, but he never advocated violence and was a man of conviction, so he should be praised.

If Bin Laden, despite everything, rallied his supporters and kicked up a fuss and lobbied and marched but never used violence, then he would also be worthy of praise, but as it stands he is lower than a snakes belly and I am saddened that there is unlikely to be a hell for him to roast in, whilst being penetrated with a spiky Dildo and being forced to listen to Michael Buble records on loop.

+1

In the IRA's case they were trying to overthrow a democracy supported by the majority of the people in the territory concerned. Northern Ireland is 70% loyalist. Thats terrorism not freedom fighting.

Its freedom fighting only if you are an oppressed majority and questionable even if you have a heavily oppressed minority. Untennable in other cases.

This is why I consider the September 11th attacks in retrospect at least partly beneficial It taught Americans what terrorism was really like and cut through decades of Irish American bullcrap about some heroic causes and noble ideals that never were. Support for the IRA dropped overnight and never recovered.

Exactly my point.

If you are in the minority, and there is a democratic vote and you lose, so you then start blowing gak up, you are a mother fether no matter how you slice it.

If all of Northern Ireland wanted to be part of Ireland, then they could happily be, I dont give even half a gak. The reason I give a gak is because if you truly value democracy, then nobody has any place to tell them they have to unite Ireland. The fethers that live there are not inetrested.

Same goes for the fething Argies, why do you think I hate that slut Kirchner so much?

99% of the inhabitants of the Falklands want to remain British, ergo there is no discussion required, and anyone with any integrity should support them, be they Argentinian or otherwise.

Politics, i've gak it! If I was a fething Frenchie or an Argentinian and I read about the Falklands situation I would STILL be fething outraged! Not letting them have any eggs because they want to remain tied to the UK?!

Its fething infantile is what it is! Why aren't the rest of the world annoyed about it? Are we really that fethed up we only care if cash is involved?

We have to do the looking after with regards to the Falklands.

Fernandez uses the islands as a distraction from the total feth up her countries economy is.

Some want her to win because they will hope then to get oil contracts. Unlike the UK which has some international clout still Argentina has very little. Whoever takes the oil contracts will rip off Buenos Aires and there will be nothing they can do about it.
Getting the contracts of our hands is more difficult. This is why we aret getting the deserved support.

We need to up the population to about 50K then it will be taken more seriously, though the referendum will help.

 Orlanth wrote:


We need to up the population to about 50K then it will be taken more seriously, though the referendum will help.

Considering its current population is around 3,000 I don't see it reaching 50,000 any time soon, especially when there is very little incentive for young people to stay there.

Pay them to be like rabbits..... In fact I'm sure there be a few volunteers on Dakka that would go down and "help" to raise the pop.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Che's thoughts on Terrorism, when discussing the key differences between it and Sabotage, from his book on Guerrilla Warfare: "... Terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys many lives that would be valuable to the revolution."

A Freedom Fighter uses sabotage to attack things of military or economic importance to their enemy and weaken the regime. A Terrorist uses force to kill and intimidate indiscriminately in the hopes of weakening the regime, though their actions often have the opposite effect in decreasing support for the terrorist organisation and giving the regime an excuse to increase their stranglehold on power which will be more readily accepted by the people.

As much as I hate Che (mostly because he's become a hipster icon), that's a pretty good definition. Though I wonder what he would say about 9/11.

 Jihadin wrote:
Pay them to be like rabbits..... In fact I'm sure there be a few volunteers on Dakka that would go down and "help" to raise the pop.

Then there's the downside that there wouldn't be any jobs, or even enough schools for all these kiddies

Also I'd be impressed if a couple of members from Dakka could raise the population by over ten times its current size


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:


As much as I hate Che (mostly because he's become a hipster icon), that's a pretty good definition. Though I wonder what he would say about 9/11.

That's a good question. He'd have probably (in my opinion) condemned the attacks but suggested that the US government carried them out itself in order to gain justification for the invasion of Iraq and the spread of "Yankee Imperialism". That way he can condone the murder of the innocent people in the towers whilst still attacking the US government.

 Orlanth wrote:

Some want her to win because they will hope then to get oil contracts. Unlike the UK which has some international clout still Argentina has very little. Whoever takes the oil contracts will rip off Buenos Aires and there will be nothing they can do about it.

Argentina is still a net exporter. If they were to invite, say, US (or more likely Brazilian) oil companies to do a bit of exploration they will be for some time.

So, yeah, who is going to rip off Buenos Aires?

 Orlanth wrote:

We need to up the population to about 50K then it will be taken more seriously, though the referendum will help.

Where are you going to find ~47k people willing to live on a rock under constant threat of war?

They could move ~47,000 troops there to a permanate military base

 Grey Templar wrote:
They could move ~47,000 troops there to a permanate military base

This is the UK. I don't know whether we even have 47,000 active soldiers any more with all the cuts our government is making

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That's a good question. He'd have probably (in my opinion) condemned the attacks but suggested that the US government carried them out itself in order to gain justification for the invasion of Iraq and the spread of "Yankee Imperialism". That way he can condone the murder of the innocent people in the towers whilst still attacking the US government.

Well said, but of course I will need to look into it. I'll admit I don't know much about Che, I was thrown from the study of him by the many, many shirts featuring his face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

This is the UK. I don't know whether we even have 47,000 active soldiers any more with all the cuts our government is making

You have about 230k.

I will be really interested in what conclusions people come to about the characters in the new Red Dawn movie! Though I'm sure the movie will only ever show them killing military targets and no civilians ever getting hurt.

I know the difference between Hollywood and RL bad guys

 Jihadin wrote:
I know the difference between Hollywood and RL bad guys

Grooming and likelihood to be sexually attracted to farm animals?

Don't make me post that video KM

 dogma wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That's a good question. He'd have probably (in my opinion) condemned the attacks but suggested that the US government carried them out itself in order to gain justification for the invasion of Iraq and the spread of "Yankee Imperialism". That way he can condone the murder of the innocent people in the towers whilst still attacking the US government.

Well said, but of course I will need to look into it. I'll admit I don't know much about Che, I was thrown from the study of him by the many, many shirts featuring his face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

This is the UK. I don't know whether we even have 47,000 active soldiers any more with all the cuts our government is making

You have about 230k.

The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.

I call it the green tinted glasses effect. 'The English horrifically murdered most of my family (or forced them to starve to death) between 100 and 200 years ago, so I support what the IRA does now.' is a common sentiment.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The IRA are terrorists and criminals.

Ok... now we're getting somewhere. You do realize that there are whole nations that say the same thing... about the British Army/Government, right?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

When it comes to Northern Ireland there's a lot of rubbish spoken, often by Americans who simply don't have much of an idea of what it was actually about. I guess some take it upon themselves to sympathise with the IRA against the evil jackboot of British tyranny as they see themselves as being a bit 'Oirish' because some distant relative might have migrated from there a long time ago.

'Long time' can be a relative term, though, and you have to admit, people on the receiving end of crimes against humanity tend to be resentful about it for a long time. My great uncle (as well as the rest of my mother's side, to lesser degrees), for example, really disliked the English to his dying day (understatement ahoy!). For him, it was not 'a long time ago' even when he was telling me the story as a small child about what he did during the Sixteen and after, because there's no such thing as 'a long time ago' when you're talking about things like the rape and murder of your parents, for example. He went a little nuts and got his Batman on by blowing up British armored cars. He eventually did leave Ireland because he felt that over all things were heading the wrong way and that the Irish were getting almost as brutal as the English (something about shooting hostages).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there

It does when one of the people you're getting pissed with that year is Gerry Adams, who was visiting for a fund raising event a few years back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you.

Actually it's because of the book.



Let me make an example:

The Nazi's referred to Jews and resistance fighters as terrorists. I really can't think of any better way to show how it really is just a label applied by governments on people they don't like.

Think they were label partisans at that timeframe. Partisans were more force on force type combat.

Partisan is just another word for a Guerrilla fighter. The only difference is that 'Partisan' is French and that makes it fancier. Partisans are free to engage in terrorist tactics as much as any other guerrilla.

So they're insurgents in today terms.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there

It does when one of the people you're getting pissed with that year is Gerry Adams, who was visiting for a fund raising event a few years back.

Actually no, getting pissed with a murderer with a very blinkered worldview doesn't make you any more informed about anything, it probably makes you less so.

Yeah the words are used in a way that is interchangeable.

Problem is that the proper definition of insurgency is not the same as a partisan. I guess in my quickened response I just overlooked the nuance here. Allow me to rectify:

Partisans and insurgence are both guerrilla fighters in that they use guerrilla warfare. Technically however insurgence are fighters engaged in conflict with an authority to whom they are not legitimate constituent (meaning that the outcome of the conflict has no bearing on them). Partisans are the same, except that they are legitimate constituents to the conflict.

Example:

And insurgent is an American who joins the IRA to fight for Irish independence. The American is not Irish, has no citizenship to the Irish or the British, meaning the conflicts outcome is meaningless to him/her, and thus not a legitimate constituent to the conflict (This is of course massively simplified).

EDIT: Another way of defining the difference is who the invasive force is. Insurgents are an outside force opposing an authority to whom they are not constituents. Partisan as a term tends to be used to define an internal force opposing an outside authority (hence why you heavily see the word in use concerning WWII resistance movements).

 dæl wrote:

Actually no, getting pissed with a murderer with a very blinkered worldview doesn't make you any more informed about anything, it probably makes you less so.

If that's what you believe, I'd avoid any bars near military bases, houses of government, and police stations. Since they're all blinkered murderers to someone.

Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, in particular, would be poor drinking companions indeed, by that definition.

However, I might point out that my world view is already pretty skewed. After all, I know that the difference between 'liberation' and 'occupation' is largely whether the band of killers you support is the one that just took over, just as the difference between 'glorious leader' and 'vicious drug lord' is largely whether or not their continued regime is an embarrassment to the administration in Washington or an asset (for whatever reason).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Partisans and insurgence are both guerrilla fighters in that they use guerrilla warfare. Technically however insurgence are fighters engaged in conflict with an authority to whom they are not legitimate constituent (meaning that the outcome of the conflict has no bearing on them). Partisans are the same, except that they are legitimate constituents to the conflict.

One is protected under the laws of war, as well, whereas the other is considered an 'illegal combatant' according to the US. However, the reality is that most nations don't really discrimination between the two and assume that all of them fall under the latter category, usually not bothering with such niceties as the Geneva Conventions, the actual legal status of the prisoners notwithstanding.

For real complications, consider the status of armed refugee groups when a war spills over into a surrounding country. Are tehy insurgents, partisans, or something else all together?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Actually no, getting pissed with a murderer with a very blinkered worldview doesn't make you any more informed about anything, it probably makes you less so.

If that's what you believe, I'd avoid any bars near military bases, houses of government, and police stations. Since they're all blinkered murderers to someone.

Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, in particular, would be poor drinking companions indeed, by that definition.

However, I might point out that my world view is already pretty skewed. After all, I know that the difference between 'liberation' and 'occupation' is largely whether the band of killers you support is the one that just took over, just as the difference between 'glorious leader' and 'vicious drug lord' is largely whether or not their continued regime is an embarrassment to the administration in Washington or an asset (for whatever reason).

Did Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt often order the killing of innocent women? It's not really general practice among soldiers and police either. Now I am no fan of some of the actions of the British government but they do tend to draw the line when it comes to murdering innocent civilians and indiscriminate bombing.

 dæl wrote:

Did Washington,

Yes. There's a reason he's to this day called 'town burner' by the Iroquois Confederacy. Most of the military actions he ordered in western New York and Pennsylvania during his administration would fall under 'crimes against humanity'.

 dæl wrote:

Lincoln

Yes. In fact, he went so far as to authorize 'total' war, including direct war on the Civilian Population.

 dæl wrote:
or Roosevelt

On that specific charge, Theodore, not so much, Franklin, on the other hand... yes.

 dæl wrote:
but they do tend to draw the line when it comes to murdering innocent civilians and indiscriminate bombing.

Really? Please explain that to the citizens of Dresden. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that the deliberate firebombing of a city filled with refugees for no strategic gain was a line drawn. The bombers must have flown off course when they crossed that line and killed 186,000 civilians (according to allied POWs sent to clean up) and missed almost every single military installation in the city.

 LordofHats wrote:
Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Just post Bellum.

Most 'terrorist' organizations pretty much automatically fail two of the above.

That's a nice, fancy pants latin way of putting it, yeah

And I'd say that they are terrorist organisation because they fail those tests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

The what?

I mean, Che was a brutal and ruthless man, and a key figure in producing the regime in Cuba. So I've no admiration for the guy, but the revolution there was successful, so calling him a failure makes zero sense.

 sebster wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

The what?

I mean, Che was a brutal and ruthless man, and a key figure in producing the regime in Cuba. So I've no admiration for the guy, but the revolution there was successful, so calling him a failure makes zero sense.

He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

The what?

I mean, Che was a brutal and ruthless man, and a key figure in producing the regime in Cuba. So I've no admiration for the guy, but the revolution there was successful, so calling him a failure makes zero sense.

He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

Since Che had one successful revolution and one failed revolution and that makes him a monumental failure, then it would seem Thomas Edison is the biggest loser in history. On the light bulb alone he failed several hundred times.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

I don't think you've got a full grasp on how difficult revolutions are, and how likely they are to succeed.

I mean, it's like saying someone's a loser for only winning one World Cup, despite being in four World Cup squads.


And I think people admire him because he was a true believer. He turned down a comfortable life as a doctor to join a cause he believed would benefit all humanity. That he became a murderous bastard along the way and the regime he helped create ended up about as bad as the government it overthrew seems to escape most of his fans, though

 sebster wrote:


And I think people admire him because he was a true believer. He turned down a comfortable life as a doctor to join a cause he believed would benefit all humanity. That he became a murderous bastard along the way and the regime he helped create ended up about as bad as the government it overthrew seems to escape most of his fans, though

This Sebster is why, when i see someone wearing a che shirt, i get the resistable urge to gut them with a blunt fishing knife.

I think i'm going to have to get a che shirt made up with murderer emblazoned across it in red, can't say i haven't learned something from greenpeace campaigns.

 sebster wrote:


Most 'terrorist' organizations pretty much automatically fail two of the above.

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

I don't think you've got a full grasp on how difficult revolutions are, and how likely they are to succeed.

I mean, it's like saying someone's a loser for only winning one World Cup, despite being in four World Cup squads.


And I think people admire him because he was a true believer. He turned down a comfortable life as a doctor to join a cause he believed would benefit all humanity. That he became a murderous bastard along the way and the regime he helped create ended up about as bad as the government it overthrew seems to escape most of his fans, though

I am aware of how difficult a revolution is. So many revolutions overthrow the government without a clear goal of what they want to do afterwards, which often leads to the military just sweeping in and nothing really changes. The fact that the Cuban revolution has survived this long and kept to so many of the ideals it fought for in the first place (universal healthcare, education and agrarian reform) alive is evidence that Fidel and his supporters had a definite vision of what they wanted Cuba to be like. Reading the memoirs of the Cuban campaign that Che wrote gives a pretty clear insight into how difficult it was to get to the end result, though. In the first battle against Batistas forces the 50 Guerrillas who arrived by boat were cut down to around 12.

What I find interesting is that he was at his worst when he was in a position of power in the revolutionary Cuban government. During all his time in the field he would never order the execution of POWs, injured enemy soldiers would be given medical treatment to the best of the guerrillas ability, the local populace would not be threatened and any food would be paid for. I think that he was someone who didn't actually want the power afterwards, preferring to be someone who brought the change about. After all he gave up his position in the Cuban government and even his Cuban citizenship when he left to fight in the Congo.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.

I call it the green tinted glasses effect. 'The English horrifically murdered most of my family (or forced them to starve to death) between 100 and 200 years ago, so I support what the IRA does now.' is a common sentiment.

In the Irish-American community perhaps. It's certainly not been my experience.

 Albatross wrote:

In the Irish-American community perhaps. It's certainly not been my experience.

Hmm... Most likely that's due to the US getting a larger percentage of the more militant refugees in the 18th and 19th century. Remember that getting the US to invade Ireland and drive out the English was a ancillary goal to the better part of an entire army corps during the US Civil War, and they used that experience to invade Canada. (Another case of win all the battles and lose the war).

It's like Israel. Most US Jews will never visit Jerusalem. But they'll send billions (and make sure their Congressmen send billions more) to ensure it's security. Many of them, if they were even descendent from Jews that actually fled the destruction of Judea, had not had a connection to the region for 2k years.

Belief and ideology have little to do with reality. Irish-Americans have built up a belief structure that equates Ireland with the Promised Land and England with a cross between Hitler and Satan.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

In the Irish-American community perhaps. It's certainly not been my experience.

Hmm... Most likely that's due to the US getting a larger percentage of the more militant refugees in the 18th and 19th century. Remember that getting the US to invade Ireland and drive out the English was a ancillary goal to the better part of an entire army corps during the US Civil War, and they used that experience to invade Canada. (Another case of win all the battles and lose the war).

It's like Israel. Most US Jews will never visit Jerusalem. But they'll send billions (and make sure their Congressmen send billions more) to ensure it's security. Many of them, if they were even descendent from Jews that actually fled the destruction of Judea, had not had a connection to the region for 2k years.

Belief and ideology have little to do with reality. Irish-Americans have built up a belief structure that equates Ireland with the Promised Land and England with a cross between Hitler and Satan.

Having lived in both England and Northern Ireland I can confirm that the two areas are practically identical apart from the accents and several very minor cultural quirks. The same is true of regions within England though. In fact, I'd posit that Northern Ireland and Yorkshire have more in common culturally than Yorkshire and Greater London. My father's side of the family are all northern-Irish border county catholic Republicans (some of whom are, or were, Sinn Fein members) and I can tell you from experience that they don't hate the English anywhere near as much as the Irish-Americans claim to. Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you. The Irish and English are massively intermingled these days (as evidenced by my own family) economically, socially and culturally. Americans don't have that same connection with Ireland, or England for that matter - I guess this makes things a little difficult to grasp. Irish-Americans typically have some half-remembered and little-understood family mythology upon which to base their opinions of the England-Ireland relationship, and base their opinions of my country, England, upon godawful Hollywood movies and national stereotypes because most of them will never visit these shores and know next to nothing of our 1000+ year history. The relationships between the peoples of the nations that comprise (and comprised) Britain are very long and very complicated. Any attempts by ignorant Americans (which are the exception and not the rule, thankfully) to impose their childish and reductive world-view upon the history of these islands and the current state of relationships between its people is something I find grossly offensive. You live thousands of miles away. Basically, shut the feth up.

EDIT: Erm, in a general sense. Not you specifically. Unless you want to.

 Albatross wrote:

Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

That works right up to the moment that someone pulls out an Orange flag and starts marching around commemorating 'The Twelfth'. Granted, last time I visited Ireland was 1997, so, again, perhaps my view is skewed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Really? Please explain that to the citizens of Dresden. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that the deliberate firebombing of a city filled with refugees for no strategic gain was a line drawn. The bombers must have flown off course when they crossed that line and killed 186,000 civilians (according to allied POWs sent to clean up) and missed almost every single military installation in the city.

Wasn't Dresden an RAF action?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

That works right up to the moment that someone pulls out an Orange flag and starts marching around commemorating 'The Twelfth'. Granted, last time I visited Ireland was 1997, so, again, perhaps my view is skewed.

Probably. Last time I was there was a couple of months ago, when I was visiting my granny. There was some big orange march planned for the village and surrounding area that I was staying in, and most people seemed to regard it with bemusement. I certainly wouldn't say that tensions were high. It just doesn't seem to be something that the majority of the population get worked up about these days, certain parts of Belfast aside. A niche interest, and an anachronistic one at that. The young people certainly didn't seem to give a gak about it either way - kind of a 'what are those daft buggers up to now? *tut* ' reaction.

That bodes quite well for the future of the province, I feel.

 dogma wrote:


Where are you going to find ~47k people willing to live on a rock under constant threat of war?

The internal share of the oil money in the Falklands can easily attract residents, they don't have to spend all year their either to count.
So long as the Falklands island assembly (who are by and large fairly self aware) choose carefully where they recruit populace from they will be ok.

They could get a number of oil residents there anyway, again the trick is to set rules as to where they are recruited from. It oil companies bring in 5000 people from Latin America you will get problems very quickly. Fortunately for the Falklanders they are not so dogmatic about being transparent on who they let in in large numbers, as they see the need to preserve an Anglic majority. I am far more worried about woolly thinking in Westminster than on the Falklands themselves.

They could get 50,000 people easily enough, pay them 'benefits' of $20K available only for the months of the year they stay there. It might sound stupid but other small island countries do something similar, if not for the same reason. Nauru for example, technically the richest country in the world in terms of highest minimum income. they gain enough from fishing rights in the exclusive economic zone to give the entire population a state benefit income of $20K in addition to anything else they earn. Falklanders can be in for the same, in fact could easily get more with their oil plus fishing, pay the UK a share and pay for the garrison and have cash to spare to corporate profit real easy. The islands share of several billion barrels of oil split only 50,000 ways is a whole lot of money per capita.
If we can hold the line until 2017 this easily could be the reality. A Falklands with the population and income to say a big "F' off" to Argentina permanently. In the best case scenario you get a toned down tundra and sheep version of a gulf state. All it take s is a little vision, getting forward planning out of the bungling idiots in Whitehall is the big problem to me, not the Argentinians.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Wasn't Dresden an RAF action?

True, but the subject was the British government, so...

On cops and bombings: I've seen it before, but the one that springs to mind was Philadelphia, blowing up MOVE, killed 11 people, including children. Incidentally, 4 pounds of C4 apparently is considered 'excessive force' by US judges.

My mistake thought you were saying it was Roosevelt.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'd argue some terrorist organizations could have a valid case for Jus Ad Bellum. The primary problem is determining whether or not a non-state entity can qualify as a legitimate authority (traditionally the answer is no).

Usually its the later two that I think are automatic failures, as most terrorist organizations have unrealistic goals and engage in unethical war practices (hence the name terrorist XD)

Ah, check your quotes. You said that, not me. You're actually debating with yourself there

And I'd say that the various elements need to be understood as inter-related. That is, having a good cause actually makes it more likely you'll be able to achieve your ambitions, and provide some kind of stable outcome (whether its merely political freedoms won, or an overthrow of the old regime). Similarly, fighting the cause in a way that is justified by your cause also increases the chance of a stable outcome.

That last part is where I'd argue the Tamil Tigers failed. In being so ruthless, they put themselves in a position where there was no chance of a stable outcome. Sri Lanka couldn't tolerate independance for a group of people who had done what the Tigers had done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I am aware of how difficult a revolution is.

So it's a little unfair to claim he failed two of them, and therefore is a loser, surely?

What I find interesting is that he was at his worst when he was in a position of power in the revolutionary Cuban government. During all his time in the field he would never order the execution of POWs, injured enemy soldiers would be given medical treatment to the best of the guerrillas ability, the local populace would not be threatened and any food would be paid for. I think that he was someone who didn't actually want the power afterwards, preferring to be someone who brought the change about. After all he gave up his position in the Cuban government and even his Cuban citizenship when he left to fight in the Congo.

I thought the story about him executing a traitor was considered pretty solid these days? Nothing compared to what he did while in power, of course, but still strong evidence he had become a very ruthless man during the fighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Having lived in both England and Northern Ireland I can confirm that the two areas are practically identical apart from the accents and several very minor cultural quirks. The same is true of regions within England though. In fact, I'd posit that Northern Ireland and Yorkshire have more in common culturally than Yorkshire and Greater London. My father's side of the family are all northern-Irish border county catholic Republicans (some of whom are, or were, Sinn Fein members) and I can tell you from experience that they don't hate the English anywhere near as much as the Irish-Americans claim to. Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

It reminds of how interesting and nuanced it is to hear an Israeli talk about relations with Palestine, and compare that to the view of a Jewish American.

 sebster wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Having lived in both England and Northern Ireland I can confirm that the two areas are practically identical apart from the accents and several very minor cultural quirks. The same is true of regions within England though. In fact, I'd posit that Northern Ireland and Yorkshire have more in common culturally than Yorkshire and Greater London. My father's side of the family are all northern-Irish border county catholic Republicans (some of whom are, or were, Sinn Fein members) and I can tell you from experience that they don't hate the English anywhere near as much as the Irish-Americans claim to. Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

It reminds of how interesting and nuanced it is to hear an Israeli talk about relations with Palestine, and compare that to the view of a Jewish American.

Yeah, that's a useful analogy.

 sebster wrote:
Ah, check your quotes. You said that, not me. You're actually debating with yourself there

Arguing with one brick wall is the same as arguing with any other brick wall I suppose

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I am aware of how difficult a revolution is.

So it's a little unfair to claim he failed two of them, and therefore is a loser, surely?

I never said he was a loser, that was someone else, just that he did fail two revolutions. His introduction to his Congo diaries even starts with "This is the story of a failure." Che wasn't the kind of man to compromise or mince words. He would regard anything but the total completion of the goal as a failure. Still, his failures in Bolivia and the Congo don't detract from his success in Cuba, so calling him a loser is to do his whole history an injustice. It would be like calling Montgomery a loser because Market Garden failed whilst ignoring his victories in Africa.

What I find interesting is that he was at his worst when he was in a position of power in the revolutionary Cuban government. During all his time in the field he would never order the execution of POWs, injured enemy soldiers would be given medical treatment to the best of the guerrillas ability, the local populace would not be threatened and any food would be paid for. I think that he was someone who didn't actually want the power afterwards, preferring to be someone who brought the change about. After all he gave up his position in the Cuban government and even his Cuban citizenship when he left to fight in the Congo.

I thought the story about him executing a traitor was considered pretty solid these days? Nothing compared to what he did while in power, of course, but still strong evidence he had become a very ruthless man during the fighting.

He did execute deserters if they were caught within the realm of operations of the Guerrilla column. A famous example was the execution of three deserters who had started terrorising the local peasants, including raping the women, taking their food and money and then burning their house down, all whilst they pretended to be high ranking members of the Guerrilla Army. Che's column caught them and he had them executed. Considering that the maximum punishment for desertion in the US army during wartime is death even now and the Guerrillas had no prison to hold detainees, or the personnel to guard it even if they did, executions were really the only punishment available. Che acknowledges in his Cuban memoirs that some of the people executed during this time might have deserved a chance to redeem themselves but without the resources to allow that chance it wasn't possible.

If people wanted to leave the guerrilla army they were given the choice after a couple of days of marching, if they chose to do so they had to immediately leave the area of operations or would be treated as a deserter and shot if they were captured. For a small force which relies on surprise and misinformation to defeat larger enemy forces this approach is understandable. You don't want lots of people moving about who know roughly how many men you have or where you are, in case they are picked up by the military the column is trying to ambush and become informers.

So there's a difference between the treatment of a captured enemy soldier and a captured person who had previously been a part of the guerrilla band and left without permission. Che's treatment and expectations of his men were quite severe but he held himself to the same standards.