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.

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.