What is the difference between a Terrorist and a Ressistance fighter?

Is there one?

Now I understand that alot of people lack a full understanding of what these terrorists are, especially in the US. Most simply view them as the crazy people that hate freedom and crashed planes into the twin towers. Other even say that the western world are the terrorists and we have provoke such actions.

The purpose of this thread is to have ATS come up with a concensus over what the true definition of a terrorist is. Personally, I believe this is a touchy subject, and without proper information, opinions become irrelevant. There is a deep-rooted story behind every little boy that wants to blow himself up, or any father that would course his wife into fleeing this world in the act murder.

I guess we should first ask ourselves why they want to kill so bad. I will withhold my perspective until the thread gets moving some. AAC

[edit on 18-7-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

What is a terrorist?

Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.

This is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the use, of the word "terrorist."

Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.

In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:

Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.

Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.

Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.

Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.

Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.

While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.

Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.

And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.

Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.

At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.

All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.

Terrorists kill anyone who is in striking distance without regard for life.

Freedom fighters attack military targets and limit civilian deaths.

i wrote a similer topic HERE I wrote it this morning.

Sorry Ronishia, I never go into PTS. Although I just read your topic and it was well done.

I also would like to add that the phsycology of the terrorist/ressistance fighter will become more barbaric over time, as their lives become more oppressive. So what would have began as a boy trying to expell an enemy, became a man who has failed to expell the enemy. Now he resorts to more barbaric tactics.

For instance: Israel bombs the crap out of all the military points. Hezbolhla doesn't have the capability to strategically pin point such targets, but they still yearn to vindicate the deaths of their brothers and sisters. This is wear the radicals becomes more extreme and resort to killing civilians, thus being painted as dirty terrorist.

thats ok hun between the to off us it makes a pretty good topic lol

A resistance fighter is somebody who fights against an oppressive force, whether its foreign or domestic. A resistance fighter also values life and law and order, just not the law or order being forced on them.


A terrorist is somebody who fights for a singular cause or agenda and has zero regard for human life. They use any and all methods to achieve their goals including lies, deceit, sabotage, murder, assassination, propaganda, and the indiscriminate wholesale slaughter of people and property. It matters not who they kill, including babies, woman, elderly, and handicapped, it only matters that they kill.

There are some resistance fighters in Iraq, but 100% of any that target civilians are terrorists pure and simple. Resistance fighters would only target the oppressors themselves and their agents, not their very own people.


Saddam was the oppressor, the coalition are the liberators. The fight today is between the law and order of a new age versus evil oppressing remnants of Saddams backers and sympathizers and a random splash of foreign elements with their own singular agendas. And it’s the Iraqi people who are ultimately suffering as a result.

famous quote;

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Originally posted by skippytjc
A resistance fighter is somebody who fights against an oppressive force, whether its foreign or domestic. A resistance fighter also values life and law and order, just not the law or order being forced on them.


A terrorist is somebody who fights for a singular cause or agenda and has zero regard for human life. They use any and all methods to achieve their goals including lies, deceit, sabotage, murder, assassination, propaganda, and the indiscriminate wholesale slaughter of people and property. It matters not who they kill, including babies, woman, elderly, and handicapped, it only matters that they kill.

There are some resistance fighters in Iraq, but 100% of any that target civilians are terrorists pure and simple. Resistance fighters would only target the oppressors themselves and their agents, not their very own people.


Saddam was the oppressor, the coalition are the liberators. The fight today is between the law and order of a new age versus evil oppressing remnants of Saddams backers and sympathizers and a random splash of foreign elements with their own singular agendas. And it’s the Iraqi people who are ultimately suffering as a result.

So you don't think it is possible that time has turned a freedom fighter into a terrorist?

A terrorist is one who fights against what is accepted as politically correct. For example, although the west stole the land from Palestinians, the west keeps referring to their just cause to get their lands back as terrorism.

A resistance fighter is one who fights for what is accepted as politically correct. For example, the Americans against the British, or the IRA against (again) the British.

Masterp,

That's just it. Who has the authority to decide what is politically correct? There is a deep physcology to each case I'm sure. Ben Ladden started his terror by wanting the Soviet Union out of the holy land. Then he turned on Saudi Arabia for allowing US soldiers to protect their royal family. He is following the code of his religion. That is all most people are doing. BTW, I'm not supporting Ben Ladden, I'm only playing devils advocate. AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
What is the difference between a Terrorist and a Ressistance fighter?

When you win, you're a resistance fighter, when you loose, you're a terrorist.

Well, that and that terrorists specifically target and kill women and children civilians.

The purpose of this thread is to have ATS come up with a concensus over what the true definition of a terrorist is.

Why?

There is a deep-rooted story behind every little boy that wants to blow himself up, or any father that would course his wife into fleeing this world in the act murder.

So? What does it matter?

I guess we should first ask ourselves why they want to kill so bad.

Who's 'they'?
You mean militant arabs? Like Hamas and Hezbollah? They hate the jews, and want to destroy isreal, thats why they continue to attack israel. THey use terror tactics, such as suicide bombing and firing rockets into market places, because they are too weak to do anything else.

Ben Ladden started his terror by wanting the Soviet Union out of the holy land.

?
Bin Ladin joined the mujahideners in afghanistan, they were freedom fighters, because they were fighting the soliders of an enemy. Now bin ladin targets innocent civilians and kills them, thus, he is not a freedom fighter.

He is following the code of his religion

He is following his own interpretation of a religion.

That is all most people are doing

?
Some middle eastern terror organizations are religious fanatics, and its that religious fanaticism that makes them a global threat. Previously, the irish terrorists were Republicans, and the groups like the PLO were arab nationalists, all relatively secular.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by skippytjc
A resistance fighter is somebody who fights against an oppressive force, whether its foreign or domestic. A resistance fighter also values life and law and order, just not the law or order being forced on them.


A terrorist is somebody who fights for a singular cause or agenda and has zero regard for human life. They use any and all methods to achieve their goals including lies, deceit, sabotage, murder, assassination, propaganda, and the indiscriminate wholesale slaughter of people and property. It matters not who they kill, including babies, woman, elderly, and handicapped, it only matters that they kill.

There are some resistance fighters in Iraq, but 100% of any that target civilians are terrorists pure and simple. Resistance fighters would only target the oppressors themselves and their agents, not their very own people.


Saddam was the oppressor, the coalition are the liberators. The fight today is between the law and order of a new age versus evil oppressing remnants of Saddams backers and sympathizers and a random splash of foreign elements with their own singular agendas. And it’s the Iraqi people who are ultimately suffering as a result.

I would have to agree with this.

Resistance fighters go after legitimate opposing millitary targets, whilst Terrorists have their own agenda. If they need to attack their own people to do so, they wouldn't even give it a second thought.

AAC, the term "Terrorist" is purely a term used in the war of words and propaganda, its a term the people understand without having to question or think.

The term is normally associated with small groups but people are beginning to realise that the term can also apply to governments and adminsitrations, (see skippytjc's definition of a terrorist above).

Originally posted by Peyres

If they need to attack their own people to do so, they wouldn't even give it a second thought.

Wow...Peyres a bit of a sweeping statement there..or was that a quote from FOX News?

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Koka]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
What is the difference between a Terrorist and a Ressistance fighter?

When you win, you're a resistance fighter, when you loose, you're a terrorist.

Well, that and that terrorists specifically target and kill women and children civilians.

The purpose of this thread is to have ATS come up with a concensus over what the true definition of a terrorist is.

Why?

There is a deep-rooted story behind every little boy that wants to blow himself up, or any father that would course his wife into fleeing this world in the act murder.

So? What does it matter?

I guess we should first ask ourselves why they want to kill so bad.

Who's 'they'?
You mean militant arabs? Like Hamas and Hezbollah? They hate the jews, and want to destroy isreal, thats why they continue to attack israel. THey use terror tactics, such as suicide bombing and firing rockets into market places, because they are too weak to do anything else.

Ben Ladden started his terror by wanting the Soviet Union out of the holy land.

?
Bin Ladin joined the mujahideners in afghanistan, they were freedom fighters, because they were fighting the soliders of an enemy. Now bin ladin targets innocent civilians and kills them, thus, he is not a freedom fighter.

He is following the code of his religion

He is following his own interpretation of a religion.

That is all most people are doing

?
Some middle eastern terror organizations are religious fanatics, and its that religious fanaticism that makes them a global threat. Previously, the irish terrorists were Republicans, and the groups like the PLO were arab nationalists, all relatively secular.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Nygdan]

It seems to me as a moderator you would question intents a tad bit more. Terrorist didn't start out killing civilians. And if you want to get critical I believe our world powers have killed more innocent civilians with the acts of "justified" war than any terrorist group.

Now I am not backing the people who kill innocent women and children, I am only trying to find a difference in the two. Because I am starting to believe they are a product of eachother. When a resisstance fighter loses the battle for hundreds of years, at the same time facing unthinkable attrocities, they tend to become more barbaric.

I guess I would like this community to accept or entertain the idea that the idea of terrorist have been redefined by our mainstreme media, to be against freedom. When that is not the case. They all have a certain ideology that they represent, no matter how crazy we may think it is.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Masterp,

That's just it. Who has the authority to decide what is politically correct?

The social, economical, industrial and political establishment.

Ben Ladden started his terror by wanting the Soviet Union out of the holy land.

You forgot something mate...that CIA sponsored him in the fight against the soviets.

Then he turned on Saudi Arabia for allowing US soldiers to protect their royal family. He is following the code of his religion. That is all most people are doing. BTW, I'm not supporting Ben Ladden, I'm only playing devils advocate. AAC

bull$hit. Bin Laden and George Bush made a deal. Bin Laden gets to be a super star martyr for the 1+ billion muslims while Bush gets to be the saviour of democracy.

IN THE SAME TIME, BOTH GET INSANELY RICH FROM THE RISE OF PRICE OF OIL.

All that is fine and dandy. Not an issue in this thread though. Terrorism is people that want something and don't have any other means to get it. BTW, it also happens to be something they are passionate about. This is where the definition gets confusing. AAC

Originally posted by masterp
A resistance fighter is one who fights for what is accepted as politically correct. For example, the Americans against the British, or the IRA against (again) the British.

Try telling that to the victims (innocent btw) of IRA bombings.

I think it is an easy definition. Terrorists kill and destroy non-military targets for no other reason than to scare "or terrorize" people into some course of action or, as pure act of hatred bred from the dehumanization of others as a part of their belief systems

"Resistance fighters" might become terrorists if they follow the above statements.



[edit on 18-7-2006 by Apoc]

Terrorists know how to spell.

Did I get it right? Do I win a prize?



No seriously, terrorists want to instill terror. Resistance fighters are fighting, and in doing so, resisting something. Maybe it's slavery or a loss of rights or economic oppression... A terrorist can be a resistance fighter, but a resistance fighter may or may not be a terrorist.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle may or may not be a square.

If you are a resistance fighter, then part of your strategy may be to instill terror in your enemy. Therefore, you may be a terrorist, all the while being a resistance fighter.

If you go out and create terror 'just because', you are a terrorist, but a terrorist of a different kind... I'm not sure there's a term for that kind of terrorist. Maybe we should call it a 'Bush terrorist' or something, since his administration would have us believe we were attacked on 9/11 for no good reason other than to create terror "just because" they "hate us soooo much". I would guess those 'terrorists' would say otherwise.

Americans fighting in the revolutionairy war were terrorists. When they won the war, they become freedom fighters, partisans, etc. You can read British newspapers referring to them as terrorists, fighting war by hiding behind rocks and tree's, not following accepted rules of combat.

the difference between a Terrorist and a Freedom fighter is when they win. Then they become a freedom fighter and get to write the History books.

Had the Americans lost, they would be guilty of treason, terrorism, Piracy,etc against the Crown, and would be hung, etc as terrorists, pirates and thieves.