Well, that's my opinion. Someone who fights for the freedom] to make their own choice instead of having the choice made for them or thrust upon them - is fighting for that freedom and I call them freedom fighters.

Why shouldn't they be called that? Because they're not fighting for what we determine is freedom? Because they're not fighting for the freedoms we think they should?

Perhaps it would help us to understand each other if we know who "they" are. I'm talking in this context about Iraqis who are fighting against the US invasion.


[edit on 19-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, that's my opinion. Someone who fights for the freedom] to make their own choice instead of having the choice made for them or thrust upon them - is fighting for that freedom and I call them freedom fighters.

Benovelent,
Yes fighting for the freedom to make there own choice is freedom fighting. But when that choice includes takeing the freedom of choice away from everyone else is not freedom fighting. That is a tyrant.

This is a pretty difficult question! I think that the problem is that there is no "Black or White" definition, right and wrong in this case are all shades if grey.

Anyone who fights for a cause, be it political, religious or material has set themselves in direct conflict with an opposing idea. This can result in violence, initially against an opposition, then progressively the violence spreads to intimidate or kill anyone who hasn't picked a side or simply wants to live a "normal" life.

The Americans today see the Independence movemant and victory as a revolution resulting in freedom and democracy. At the time many, predominantly American colonists, saw them as rebels and terrorists determined to plunge north America into a civil war. The revolutionaries also recieved substantial quantities of money and weapons from France, who had only a few years before been at war with the British and American colonists.

The current rulers of Iran were once regarded as "freedom fighters", fighting against the rule of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (who had himself been brought to power by a joint CIA and MI6 operation and was abandoned by the Western powers when the Revolution struck) and the SAVAK secret police. However, once the Mullahs took control it became very clear, very quickly that perhaps the pre-revolutionary government should have been helped.

Sadly, the terrorist will always consider himself to be a freedom fighter. To be a freedom fighter an individual will have to be a bit of a terrorist and tyrant, to fight for a cause you must have total conviction in it's justification. Any act is justifiable in order to defeat the enemy, who quite simply MUST be in the wrong. An innocent dies? Well, that's not your fault is it? If the (insert enemy of choice here) had given up and refused to fight back the innocent wouldn't have died in the first place! Tragically people can justify acts of horror to themselves if they think they are in the right.

Sorry to ramble, to sum up, freedom fighters and terrorists are groups with some popular support in the areas they inhabit, as soon as they encounter people who disagree with them the "freedom fighter" act starts to fall away leaving an arrogant, selfish brute.

that certainly wasnt a ramble and certainly sums it all up pretty well, thank you for contributing to this.

posted by DenyAllKnowledge

This is a difficult question! there is no "Black or White" right and wrong all are shades if grey. Americans see their Independence movement as a revolution resulting in freedom and democracy. many American colonists, saw them as rebels and terrorists determined to plunge north America into a civil war. Sadly, a terrorist will always consider himself to be a freedom fighter. To be a freedom fighter an individual will have to be a bit of a terrorist and tyrant, to fight for a cause you must have total conviction in it's justification. Any act is justifiable in order to defeat the enemy, An innocent dies? Well, that's not your fault is it? to sum up, freedom fighters and terrorists are groups with some popular support in the areas they inhabit . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I wanted to “admit” DAK, that the American Revolution is getting a new look-see. I became interested as I was studying the origins of the Parliament and its control of the purse strings. How come, I asked, if the monarch was so powerful, did he or she have to come to Parliament for money? I'm starting at 1215, but obviously there was already a movement strong enough to force King John to sign the Magna Carta. The sitting pope exonerated him from his oath; the beginning of a struggle for control of England that my hero, Henry VIII ended 400 years later.

I discovered along the way that it is more accurate to describe events of 1775 to 1783 in the colonies as a coup d’etat. Actually, the people who lived in the 13 colonies were more free - if that is good English - than most of those who lived in England. Sure, we complained we were not represented in Parliament and that was true but then, so were a lot of Englishmen not represented. I do not think giving the colonies a half dozen seats in a 600 member House of Commons 3,000 miles distant would have made all that much difference.

Land. The whole thing here was about land. More land here than anyone from Europe could imagine. The War was fought here by those who wanted unrestrained access and control of millions of acres which was nearly impossible for any low born person from Europe to dream of. The western lands “solved” all the social problems in America until 1933. That is why there is no socialist movement in America worth a bucket of warm spit. Land, sometimes free, often cheap, and always available, even today, solved that problem which in Europe was addressed by advocates of mutual sharing and mutual participation. Mutuality versus individuality.

But alas, I too, have rambled. I have already posted that I say “terrorist” is a psy-ops word. It is pure hyperbole. It is deception. It is avoidance. It is a fighting word. It is all too bad. If we could raise the dead, you might want to ask Menachem Began about Jerusalem’s King David Hotel and terrorism and its relation to freedom and democracy. See Irgun Zvai Leumi for more.



[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]

the winning side determines who is a terrorist, and who is a freedom fighter. If the effort fails, they are terrorists. If they win, they are freedom fighters. The ends justify the label.
Everything else is parsing of words, framing the message to incite or oppress the population, and instilling fear into the general citizenry.

Would Americans continue supporting the iraqi invasion and occupation if the news media referred to people fighting back as freedom fighters..??

that is exactly what they will be when we finally pull out, and Iraq determines its own future. Iraq will have its civil war, will play itself out, and the people who resisted the invading American forces will be remembered as freedom fighters.

the same story has played out thousands of times in our history, from the mayans and greeks to the goings on in Iraq.
It is the tragedy of Humanity that we do not remember our mistakes.

the winning side determines who is a terrorist, and who is a freedom fighter. If the effort fails, they are terrorists. If they win, they are freedom fighters. The ends justify the label.
Everything else is parsing of words, framing the message to incite or oppress the population, and instilling fear into the general citizenry.

Would Americans continue supporting the iraqi invasion and occupation if the news media referred to people fighting back as freedom fighters..??

that is exactly what they will be when we finally pull out, and Iraq determines its own future. Iraq will have its civil war, will play itself out, and the people who resisted the invading American forces will be remembered as freedom fighters.

the same story has played out thousands of times in our history, from the mayans and greeks to the goings on in Iraq.
It is the tragedy of Humanity that we do not remember our mistakes.

Originally posted by ronishia
Is Nelson Mandela a convicted terrorist or is he a freedon fighter?

By my definition? Of course he wasn't a terrorist! He didn't target innocents. He fought for the freedom of himself and his people. The only people who would call Mandela a terrorist are those who opposed him in his fight; those who wished to keep him and his people down.

Just as today, people insist that EVERYONE fighting against the coalition forces in Iraq are terrorists, people consider Mandela a terrorist. It's an easy label to throw around, but probably 80% of the time, it isn't true.

What I find interesting is that if the people of Iraq rose up and fought to get Saddam out of power, they'd be freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom to choose another type of government (maybe even a true democracy) but if another country invades and forces a government on them, and the people fight against it, they're still freedom fighters! Because in both cases they're fighting for the right to choose their own government.

Just my opinion.

Great discussion!

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted by Benevolent Heretic

posted by ronishia
Is Nelson Mandela a convicted terrorist or is he a freedom fighter?

By my definition? Of course he wasn't a terrorist! He fought for the freedom of himself and his people. The only people who would call Mandela a terrorist are those who opposed him in his fight; those who wished to keep him and his people down.

Aside: While Mandela is on my list of the 10 greatest contributors to society in the 20th century, it is also a compliment on FW de Klerk of SA who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. I often think how easily Mandela could have been murdered while in SA captivity. As in the case of Steve Biko in 1977, beaten to death by his captors at the age of 31. For whatever reasons, Mandela survived his captivity and is still alive. No terrorist was he.

What I find interesting is that if the people of Iraq had rose up and fought to get Saddam out of power, they'd be freedom fighters . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Goodness knows I am no lover of Bush43. OTOH, I am not sure how I’d regard outsiders in Iraq, those we are calling “insurgents.” If they are locals, then they are not terrorists. If you figure we have killed 14,000 Iraqis, and they have killed 2,600 of us, then you can see who the major terrorist is. Hmm?

posted by ronishia

Thank you for responding to my 2nd question . . yes the lines can be very blurry . . the Iraq's are an example . . We consider some to be terrorist yet to their own people they are freedom fighters . . another example. From India: The mahatma. M. K. Gandhi. A lawyer. People consider him to be leading to truth, non violence and brotherly love. TATIA TOPE hero 1857. Deceived by his friend, he faced death like a hero, for the sake of his country. MADAME CAMA The fiery patriot who first unfurled India's flag at an international assembly. She turned away from luxury and lived as an exile - to serve her country. And the British Government grew afraid of her. The following could be classed as both. Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Argentine medical doctor. Murdered by the CIA in Bolivia. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil and Sri Lanka DEFINITIONS: Terrorism vs Americanism. Americanism - A custom or trait originating in the United States. Terrorism - Violent acts dangerous to human life intended to control a civilian population or the policies of a government by use of coercion, or assassination. At the prompting of the United States, western ministers adopted a 25-point cooperative plan last year in an attempt to track, stop, and convict terrorists.

The G-7 plus one (Russia) agreed to share information and resources to increase surveillance of bank accounts, front organizations and the internet. Measures adopted during the one-day meeting included easing extradition, stiffening penalties for possession of forged travel documents, and restricting access to firearms and explosives. [Edited by Don W]

Is there any contradiction here when the United States is the largest retailer of guns and munitions around the world? Is the US worried about this ill defined class of “innocents” or is it a move to cut out the arms selling competition? Is our concern about “innocents’ feigned or do our leaders not know 27,000 children die every day due to malnutrition or diseases exacerbated by poor diets? 27,000 every day. Or, how much food could the money we spent on the Zarqawi search and subsequent killing - execution - have bought? Priorities you say. Choices, I say.

Terrorist? Freedom Fighter? Both are flipsides of the same coin. I don't know who coined the term "perception is all", but they had it right. My terrorist is someone elses freedom fighter is someone elses terrorist. Perception and semantics.

I suppose tactics, how do the suppossed freedom fighter cum terrorist fight their fight against whomever? Do they attack innocents going about their daily lives, do they attack the occupying army, just how do they wage their war. That goes a long, long way towards how they are percieved.