It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolman

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.


This is what I was looking for someone to say, which is what I believe. Every so-called terrorist started out as a human that felt convicted enough to fight for what they believe in. Although bottom line, innocent civilians should never be sacrificed in war. AAC




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
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]


you've heard about the latest suicide bomb in Iraq? Guess Not. The bloke offered them jobs, waiting of the truck to be filled to the brim, and then detonated. That isn't just attacking civilians, that is sick, that design to maximise casulties, and it also prayed on the desperate situation of the civilians, who need jobs to survive.

SOME of the Insurgents in Iraq are doing it for THEIR country, they are fighting to save their country from occupation. I would too. Others, are not, they are doing it for the cause of some abstract and irrational form of a holy war, fighting for their 'muslim' brothers, even though they probably fought against Iraq in the wars that predated the Gulf wars.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The goal of a freedom fighter is only to take down a government or governing body while the goal of a terrorist is to kill as many people as possible whether they be civilians or part of the government/military.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Although bottom line, innocent civilians should never be sacrificed in war. AAC


Here in lies the problem. What is the definition of "innocent civilain"? Is a person who builds ships or planes for his country's war effort truly an "innocent civilian"? Is a person who allows insurgents to use his house for a meeting an "innocent civilian"? A few posts back an attack on a city's water supply by enemy forces was said to be an act of "State terrorism" because it affected the civilian population. Wouldn't military facilities in the area use the water, how about factories and the people who work in them?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TPL

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.


There is no such thing as 'innocent victims'.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Terrorist didn't start out killing civilians.

What organization do you consider to be a terrorist organization that doesn't kill 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.

I didn't say that killing civilians is the mark of a terrorist. Terror organizations target civilians. Civilians are allways going to be killed in war. There is a case to be made that any violence is terrorism, but then the word becomes relatively meaningless.




They all have a certain ideology that they represent, no matter how crazy we may think it is.

What does that matter? The IRA was a republican organization that wanted a united ireland, thats a noble goal. They tried to bring it about by targeting civilians, thats pathetic. The PLO was an arab nationalist organization, thats an ideology, their methods, murdering jews. Thats terrorism.


please_takemyrights
No seriously, terrorists want to instill terror. Resistance fighters are fighting, and in doing so, resisting something.

I think that this is the kind of idea that has lead to the truth of the statement that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Bin Ladin doesn't sit around thinking "I am an eeeevvvil monster, mwa hahahahah, i will kill people because I am an evvvil dooer *twists moustache*"

The PLO were freedom figthters, their method, terrorism. The american revolutionaries were freedom fighters, their method, war. The pre-israel palestinian jews were freedom fighters, their method, terrorism agains the british, etc etc. Most terrorists use terror in order to promote their cause, which they think is a just and noble cause.


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,

There is practically no one that does anything like that. At most there might be people fighting isreal that simply hate jews and want to kill and terrorise them, regardless of any arabist ideology or something along those lines. But those aren't terrorists, while everyone else is a freedom fighter, those are just racist bigoted terrorists.


Americans fighting in the revolutionairy war were terrorists.

An absolutel falsehood. They were rebels, and when they won, they were patriots to the new nation. If caught, they could be treated as criminals, when they won, they became founders of the nation. But they weren't terrorists. They didn't fight the revolution/rebellion by bombing london or rounding up and executing british nationals.


eslag90
The goal of a freedom fighter is only to take down a government or governing body while the goal of a terrorist is to kill as many people as possible whether they be civilians or part of the government/military.

The goals of the terrorist and freedom fighter are the same, the methods are what distinguishes them.


jimc5499
What is the definition of "innocent civilain"? Is a person who builds ships or planes for his country's war effort truly an "innocent civilian"?

Indeed, this is where there can be a lot of really sensible and difficult debate on the subject.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
first time here, is it just posts? where are the real activists?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by calloffreedom
first time here, is it just posts? where are the real activists?


Activists are conspirators in a conspiracy. ATS is here to investigate conspiracies and their proponents, not to participate in the conspiracies. Activism usually leads to criminal activities and attracts anarchists. I don’t think the “Three Amigo’s” are into having their boards used for that purpose. As an example; Terrorists are Activists, the Earth First people who burn down businesses are activists. They are really just common criminals and sociopaths. They have no credibility.

If you’re here for intelligent debate and discussion your in the right place. If you’re an anarchist just looking for trouble there are many other boards on the web for that sort of thing. I think most people here are law abiding decent people.


[edit on 19-7-2006 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Forgot to say -
Great post
I enjoyed reading it. It gave me lots to think about.

I think we have many terrorists in this country. We call them criminals and put them in jail.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I am amazed i didnt see this answer on. Or maybe i just missed it. Could it be the media's spin on the organization? Look during the cold war many of these so-called terrorist organizations where spun my the western media as "freedom fighters". Now because they are fighting against western values they are terrorist. So in the sence the true terrorists are the media by labeling these organizations. And these organizations are all freedom fighters. Eventhough we might not like what they are fighting for.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I believe many labels are misused. For example people associate communism with evil and call certain countries communist countries even though the word is neither evil nor accurate in describing any country existing now or in the past 50 years.

However, I do believe the word terrorist is accurately used to describe many organizations operating today.

Freedom Fighters typically do not take their plight beyond their own borders and while their actions can sometimes border on the terrorism side of things they do tend to value life and liberty in their own way.

A terrorist if born from freedom fighting is someone who goes beyond the confines of what the fighting was for in the first place.

A full blown terrorist cares not for anyone that he sees as "in the way" or "otherwise believing". He will readily sacrifice his own and kill indiscriminately. Terrorists will use the fear of his enemy against him and take his fight as far as he can travel undetected.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
hmm. interesting thought. But one could say a freedom fighter has evolved along side what is called "globalization". Since many borders are breaking down. One must think these organizations must adapt and go outside their borders to continue their fight.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
A terrorist is a non-government-employed individual killing people and/or blowing things up in opposition to US government policy.

A "resistance" or "freedom" fighter is a non-government-employed individual killing people and/or blowing things up in support of US government policy.

For example, when the Mujehadeen in Afghanistan were killing people to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan, they were "freedom fighters". When they used the very same tactics to keep the US and allies out of Afghanistan, they became terrorists. And I say this as someone who actually supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but still...

Anyway see how simple that was? Next question.

[edit on 7/19/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by calloffreedom
first time here, is it just posts? where are the real activists?

This is a discussion board. Do you have something you would wish to discuss? Here we are discussing the differences and similarities between freedom fighters and terrrorists.


during the cold war many of these so-called terrorist organizations where spun my the western media as "freedom fighters

Which organizations that were targeting civilians were being promoted as non-terrorist freedom fighters because they fought the soviets? The mujahideners didn't attack russian civilians, they fought against soviet soldiers in afghanistan.


One must think these organizations must adapt and go outside their borders to continue their fight.

And specifically murder women and children in the process?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
If a crimefighter fights crime, and a firefighter fights fire, what does a freedom fighter fight?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
What do terrorist call themselves? The moment we believe in what the terrorist are fighting for, only then do they become freedom fighters. It is just so much more easy to label them as evil with no explanation. If Red Dawn were to happen here. And a neo-fascist regime (lol) was to head the new government, with half the population accepting the new guidelines, what would become of the other half?

Over time when our laws and policies were disregarded, and our rights ignore, and our religion taken away, we would start fighting harder. After seeing our families die of hunger because of the lack of aid being shipped to our region, the feelings start to resonate. The moment when we couldn't take it anymore, and we became organized by a fearless leader who promised a return to before, that is the moment where the questions resides.

When you take it to the government and attack, what are you called by the consensus? A TERRORIST? Or a patriot who only sees one way out of this trechery? AAC



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by julianvstheworld
If a crimefighter fights crime, and a firefighter fights fire, what does a freedom fighter fight?


What do you call a person who intentionally targets children for political objectives? A pedophile? Hardly.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here's a question... What is worse, an Israeli calling a lebonese a terrorist, or the same israeli letting their son/daughter sign the bomb for fun before it is luanched on civilians? BTW, most deaths so far are civilians... AAC



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Is there one?

Now I understand that alot of people lack a full understanding of what these terrorists are:


Well this would be my Suggestion. I am sure, this would define a Terrorist.

www.traditioninaction.org...
www.interet-general.info...
www.palestinehistory.com...
www.palestinehistory.com...
www.pajamapundits.com...
z.about.com...

As for Freedom Fighters, I would think the Following would fit the Bill.

www.ilcacciatore.com...
www.stardreams.com...
www.americanrevolution.com...

missionxp.webblogg.se...
www.pkb.org.pl...
www.wagingpeace.org...

I chose the first three here, due solely to the events surrounding Texas, and the Alamo, when infact there should be 184 Other Names that are added to these three.

They Stood and Fell, with honour despite the odds. Not as Cowards. They met the Battle and challenge before them. STANDING LIKE MEN.

The others, have Stood Up and have done what they can for Freedom. Despite the Odds again

And in both cases, the did not resort to killing civilians, to glorify their aims.

Unlike the First Group under the Terrorist Banner.

Ciao

Shane




[edit on 19-7-2006 by Shane]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
A terrorist will not confine themselves to just fighting a government or military to get what they want, they will also kill/attack/terrorize innocent civilians to convince the rest of the civillian population that it is not worth the risk to oppose them.

Freedom fighters fight a government and that governments military they want to change. They don't attack civillians.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join