Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Read the title, do you think this is true?

Its undoubtably true, humans never agree on things like this.

The Francs Tireurs of the Franco-Prussian War were considered terrorists or illegal combatants by the Prussians.

Earlier than that, the Spanish Miguelletos (spel?) of the Peninsular War were considered illegal combatants by the French.

Yes and no, some people are terrorists for the simple fact that they have mental health issues are have a confused sense of reality.

However, if you talk about Terrorists that are fighting for a cause they believe is right, then yes, the poeple who share their ideals will praise him/her whilst the victims obviously hate him/her. Works vice versa too of course

It depends. A person/people's perception of fighting for one's freedom doesn't necessarily mean thats really what or why they're fighting or that their actions really meet such intentions or ends. If I walked into a populated civilian Middle-eastern market and blew myself up as a way to express my disdain towards Al Qaeda suicide-bombers...that doesn't really make me a freedom fighter imo.

However there's nothing to stop people from believing in just about anything since much of Western law encourages and protects one's stubbornness. We live in a world where people throw out labels without really getting into the definition or meaning behind it --- especially the Nazi label...I bet just about every prominent Western politician has been called a Nazi in some fashion or another.

The inherent difference between the 2 is that a 'terrorist' will specifically target civilians whereby a 'freedom fighter' will generally restrict their activities towards military targets.

2 obvious examples

IRA = Terrorists
French Resistance = Freedom fighters.

Though both have been refereed to as the opposite.

Of course there are always going to be guerrilla outfits who blur the lines (the Spanish guerrillas during the peninsula war or the Viet Cong are good examples in that they often killed both the military and civilians alike) in these cases it really does seem that one mans terrorist can indeed be another mans freedom fighter.

This seems like kind of a silly question.

Of course people have different opinions on whether someone's in the right or not, it's not specific to terrorism. You could just as easily say "One man's genocidal dictator is another man's defender of his race's survival" or something along those lines.

Terrorist.........Freedom Fighter......

I dont see a difference and have buried them both.

Part of the issue is that the Western world views freedom as an intrinsic good; not surprising when one considers that the nation predates the state in most of it.

On other parts of the planet the state has been viewed as a means of unifying disparate cultural groups, and so the notion of freedom carries far greater implications.

Simply put, it doesn't matter if you value freedom in a nation composed almost entirely of White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants because most people will utilize their freedom in a similar fashion (and agree upon it limits). Now, if you emphasize freedom in a 'nation' with 27 distinct languages, the issue is far more difficult.

LuciusAR wrote:The inherent difference between the 2 is that a 'terrorist' will specifically target civilians whereby a 'freedom fighter' will generally restrict their activities towards military targets.

2 obvious examples

IRA = Terrorists
French Resistance = Freedom fighters.

Though both have been refereed to as the opposite.

Of course there are always going to be guerrilla outfits who blur the lines (the Spanish guerrillas during the peninsula war or the Viet Cong are good examples in that they often killed both the military and civilians alike) in these cases it really does seem that one mans terrorist can indeed be another mans freedom fighter.

The French Resistance killed around four times as many French civilians as it killed Germans. Collaborators were much more practical targets than German soldiers. But in general I agree, that while political affiliation is important to whether we view a group as freedom fighters or terrorists, the methods of the organisation are a really big deal.

With an organisation like the Tamil Tigers for instance, I had sympathies with their objectives. And they did target the military for the most part, but they also directly targetted civilians, and had a few attacks that killed more than a hundred civilians.

Thing is, I'm having a hard time thinking of a group that didn't target civilians at one time or another. It's why I answered 'no', because while there are groups that are basically terrorists, I'm not sure there are any freedom fighters that weren't also terrorists, at least some of the time.

In the end it doesn't matter if they are interchangeable; what matters is what you think of any given group. That doesn't mean being intractable and unwilling to consider new ideas, either.

I think Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The fact that some people see them different is inconsequential.

So what does that make ex president Bush of USA and his acts?

Of course that's right. While to the U.S. some of the militants/militia in the Middle-East are terrorists, they genuinely believe that they're doing what's right. It might not be right in our eyes, but it is for them. It's why it's very hard to define good and evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:Terrorist.........Freedom Fighter......

I dont see a difference and have buried them both.

I hardly see how that's something to be proud of.

Ahtman wrote:In the end it doesn't matter if they are interchangeable; what matters is what you think of any given group. That doesn't mean being intractable and unwilling to consider new ideas, either.

I think Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The fact that some people see them different is inconsequential.

I don't see how your logic works. (if there is any). What of the young man whose family is killed by Americans? Would he not see Al Qaeda striking the Americans where it hurts? (9/11) And what's more, why is his pain and suffering any less consequential than the families of the 9/11 victims?

As for the argument of freedom fighters killing civilians, it's pretty much impossible to avoid in warfare. I think the issue is the targeting civilians. And even then, you'll be hard pressed to find military's that are clean of this.

The side with power writes what ever they want , the sad reality of human his'tory.

I don't think it's that extreme.
But here's the situation in the middle east from me

US citizens didn't really give a frig what happened, they watched TV and got thier oil. The BAM 9/11 happened. Understandably upset they invade...a random country. Random country, understandably upset, fights back any way they can.

On the one hand, Random Country has no option but to do whatever the feth they can to win, while America is removed from the violence. Occasionly watching ugly pictures while eating thier fast food.

MHO. YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Luna: Wow, you shortened THAT.

Of course this is true. Case in point, Nelson Mandella. That guy caused the deaths of inocent people and now he's hailed as some sort of angel.

Wasn't it only AFTER he went to jail that his WIFE started that?

What?

Pretty sure HE, not his WIFE was the one leading a guerilla warfare campaign blowing up many civilian targets such as post offices and power stations. Many civilians died as a result.

Well this is an interesting dilemna, (not the least of all that I just found out that my spelling of dilemna-the one that me and many others were taught in grade school-is wrong and should be dilemma. Whoa, major shock ) anyway, the major issue here is the vagueness of the labels terrorist and freedom fighter. For example: the American Founding Fathers were not labeled terrorists by the British, but instead as rebels, mostly because the word was non-existent. So were the Confederates, even though the word terrorist had indeed been invented by the time. We must first establish the idea that the definition of a terrorist is solely based on a Western perspective and adopted across the planet. What many Westerners would consider to be a terrorist is generally largely accepted around the globe, except for by the supposed "terrorists" benefactors. Indeed, I find this basis of definition to be the most troubling aspect of this whole debate. Here is how I have come to see it, and I think that this may be very helpful in our pursuance of this discussion.

I propose that for the sake of discussion we use an established definition that is more encompassing, and does not reflect a purely Western definition, ie someone who attacks a government as part of an uprising. Because the various Western nations have largely dropped the term "rebel" as a label, I feel that it should be lumped in with freedom fighter as well. So, here goes my quick definitions to help give us an understanding of both labels.
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter: A group or individual who does not indiscriminately attack all elements of society for the simple and selfish reason of making a statement or blackmail. This group or individual has a vested interest in creating a completely new system of laws or governance that has the support of the people behind it.
Frazzled Old Guy Short Version:
Terrorist=Bad guy or guys who just want to make a statement or get something by hurting anyone and everyone.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter=guy or guys who seek to remake an established system through their last alternative - violence. Support of the people is vital to this definition.

I fully realize that even these more strict definitions are incomplete and I will not declare that I have the complete knowledge and wisdom to create them for our use. I fully welcome any and all reasonable comments or criticisms, hell I already have those for my own stuff! I think that we can all come up with an effective definition for the discussion, and at the same time further the debate on this poll.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just an add on to my last post: I know this is a hot button subject. Please don't take my comments as smug or superior in any way. It is just that I feel that we have to have a common definition that we all largely agree with in order to have a realistic discussion.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist=Bad guy or guys who just want to make a statement or get something by hurting anyone and everyone.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter=guy or guys who seek to remake an established system through their last alternative - violence. Support of the people is vital to this definition.

So if one side is so weak with absolutely no chance of winning a real war , what option do they have? Do they just give up? or fight for their ideals
with underhanded tactics because honestly what else can they do?

And if the other side have tactical missles , nukes , of course they can glorious blow the hell out of the other side without sneaky tactics.
All with help of some nice propaganda?

Our world suddenly feel more GrimDark than 40k ....

LunaHound wrote:
So what does that make ex president Bush of USA and his acts?

The same as every other leader of a NATO/UN country who was involved at all in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists? No. Quick and Careless? Of Course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

So if one side is so weak with absolutely no chance of winning a real war , what option do they have? Do they just give up? or fight for their ideals
with underhanded tactics because honestly what else can they do?

And if the other side have tactical missles , nukes , of course they can glorious blow the hell out of the other side without sneaky tactics.
All with help of some nice propaganda?

Our world suddenly feel more GrimDark than 40k ....

Well if they are so weak that they have no chance of winning a war, then it can be reasonably assumed that their level of support among the populace is not the strongest, and therefore -according to my humbly submitted definition-places them in the realm of terrorism. And lets be honest, no nation on the planet, not even one as cruel as Russia, has ever even considered using nuclear missiles against terrorists. That really would create more terrorists and cause them to gain support among the people. The effectiveness of ones weapons is no match for a determined and resolute people, Vietnam proved that. Because most countries no longer fight wars without any moral guidelines whatsoever I highly doubt that the extremes that you are suggesting will every come to fruition. Also, the effectiveness of ones weapons, and the weakness of their enemy, does not necessitate cruelty or the like.

LunaHound wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist=Bad guy or guys who just want to make a statement or get something by hurting anyone and everyone.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter=guy or guys who seek to remake an established system through their last alternative - violence. Support of the people is vital to this definition.

So if one side is so weak with absolutely no chance of winning a real war , what option do they have? Do they just give up? or fight for their ideals
with underhanded tactics because honestly what else can they do?

And if the other side have tactical missles , nukes , of course they can glorious blow the hell out of the other side without sneaky tactics.
All with help of some nice propaganda?

Our world suddenly feel more GrimDark than 40k ....

QFT. When the going gets tough the tough do whatever the feth they can to survive and blow the s**t out of the enemy.

I do agree with JEB's attempt at a definition. Except for the fact that NO underground operations would be able to survive and operate (let alone excel) without the support of the people to some extent. I believe you are missing the point of the saying. The point is that there IS NO way of deciding who is right and who is wrong in such arrangement. Probably becuase they both are...or aren't.

Middle East
1) USA pissed off (understanbly) about 9/11 and other threatened by further attacks.
2) Middle East pissed of at America acting all badass towards it (room for elaboration)

WWII France
1) French Resistance pissed of at Nazis taking over their country.
2) Germans pissed off at how France practically s**t all over them at the end of WWI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JEB: As it comes to Vietnam is was just as much due to the fact that America had lost support for the war as it was the Viet Cong had gained it.

So doesn't that make America the terrorist in said case?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't see how your logic works. (if there is any). What of the young man whose family is killed by Americans? Would he not see Al Qaeda striking the Americans where it hurts? (9/11) And what's more, why is his pain and suffering any less consequential than the families of the 9/11 victims?

You're missing the point. A distinction based upon variant perspective is not necessarily irrelevant. This is where people usually stumble when they start to critique moral relativism. If all morality is relative, then my moral imperatives will be more important to me in the event they come into conflict with yours. There is nothing wrong with this, we are all individuals after all.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
As for the argument of freedom fighters killing civilians, it's pretty much impossible to avoid in warfare. I think the issue is the targeting civilians. And even then, you'll be hard pressed to find military's that are clean of this.

The issue is centered on the disruption of order (where order can relate to anything from social norms to power dynamics), not the tactics employed in the course of that disruption.

Do you mean, the END goal? Regardless of how it's achieved?

Here's how a see it.
Freedom Fighter = From the oppresed people view.
Terrorist = From the oppresers view.

In my two scenarios, guess who the oppresser is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the whole 'What I think is more important than what you think' is hardly a viable argument. Or even relavent to the discussion. Read the OP. So far I can not tell if you have answered the question. The question is not whether different views matter, it is whether there will always be different views. (And I'm trying to ignore the terrorist/Fu Fighter himself)

You could just as eailly define a terrorist as someone who achieves there ends by violent means, terrorism most obvously. Most so called freedom fighters don't deserve to be called that in the company of Martin Luther King jnr. and Ghandi.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

QFT. When the going gets tough the tough do whatever the feth they can to survive and blow the s**t out of the enemy.

I do agree with JEB's attempt at a definition. Except for the fact that NO underground operations would be able to survive and operate (let alone excel) without the support of the people to some extent. I believe you are missing the point of the saying. The point is that there IS NO way of deciding who is right and who is wrong in such arrangement. Probably becuase they both are...or aren't.


@JEB: As it comes to Vietnam is was just as much due to the fact that America had lost support for the war as it was the Viet Cong had gained it.

So doesn't that make America the terrorist in said case?

EF, the support from the people is what I keyed as essential to not being labeled a terrorist. I also declared that even I felt my attempts at definition to be incomplete. There is, I think, a way to define actions as right or wrong, and I think that attacking the civilians you propose to help is most definitely wrong and should place you in the camp of terrorism. I will not deny that accidents happen, but consistent bombings of marketplaces in Iraq is gonna always be a mistake.

As for Vietnam, America had lost the support of its own people. But don't forget, we were INVITED by the South Vietnamese after the nation was split in two. Stupid French, always have an excuse to feth up a good war. Dienbenphlu my ass! The Americans were largely supported by the South Vietnamese, but we could no longer justify the war to our own people which resulted in our withdrawal from SV. I do not think that you can label the US as a terrorist in this situation for aforementioned reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:You could just as eailly define a terrorist as someone who achieves there ends by violent means, terrorism most obvously. Most so called freedom fighters don't deserve to be called that in the company of Martin Luther King jnr. and Ghandi.

Hear Hear!

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.

That definition excludes Al-Qaeda as they are quite intent on remaking the system. I'd also contend that no group would ever choose to make a statement if they did not also intend to remake the system, even if their designs for it were selfish.

Personally, I think the term can be defined very easily insofar as we aren't afraid of what it will apply to. For example, my preferred definition is: Those who utilize terror in order to complete an objective. The downside of this approach is that it includes every military in the history of mankind. The upside is that it allows for accurate technical classification.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Rebel/Freedom Fighter: A group or individual who does not indiscriminately attack all elements of society for the simple and selfish reason of making a statement or blackmail. This group or individual has a vested interest in creating a completely new system of laws or governance that has the support of the people behind it.

I honestly can't think of one group in the history of the world that attacked people in a truly indiscriminate fashion. Even suicide bombers tend to choose their targets by dint of geography.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

whatwhat wrote:You could just as eailly define a terrorist as someone who achieves there ends by violent means, terrorism most obvously. Most so called freedom fighters don't deserve to be called that in the company of Martin Luther King jnr. and Ghandi.

Hear Hear!

Hear, Hear!

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.

That definition excludes Al-Qaeda as they are quite intent on remaking the system. I'd also contend that no group would ever choose to make a statement if they did not also intend to remake the system, even if their designs for it were selfish.

Personally, I think the term can be defined very easily insofar as we aren't afraid of what it will apply to. For example, my preferred definition is: Those who utilize terror in order to complete an objective. The downside of this approach is that it includes every military in the history of mankind. The upside is that it allows for accurate technical classification.

Also true. (did I feth up the quote?)

Terrorists deliberately attack civilian targets in order to spread terror for political means.

Freedom fighters attack military targets in order to weaken the enemy's will, if not defeat them militarily, however as they are not members of a legitimate armed force constituted by the government they are easily stigmatised with the label terrorist even if they avoid collateral damage or attacks on civilians.

The War On Terror starting in 2001 was licence for repressive regimes to crack down on arguably justifiable armed resistance.