It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+2 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:37 PM
In this day and age, where the words "freedom" and "terrorism" have become inextricably linked. It is hard to see who is Freedom Fighter and who is Terrorist. In this thread I have tried to view both sides citing various sources (listed in the end post).

For starters, there is no single definition. Even when people agree on broad parameters, classifying a specific act as "terrorism" or a group of suspects as "terrorists" involves judgment.

Our views depend on where we stand, and affect how we see the attackers, their motives, as well as their targets. Such perceptions can influence our choice of language, summed up by the popular expression: "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." Do ends justify the means? Some observers say terrorism must be judged by its motive. Others insist that, to be objective, one must examine the act itself.

International View of Terrorist/Resistance Group/ Armed resistance

After more than half a century, the United Nations is still struggling to come up with a definition of terrorism. In recent years, experts have suggested several possibilities. A 1992 report commissioned by the UN suggested that terrorism be "the peacetime equivalent of War Crimes," including deliberate attacks against civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners. Many believe the Sept. 11 attacks have given new urgency to the need for consensus, and the UN is planing to hold more debates.

Some experts in the Middle East think the solution is obvious. Boaz Ganor, director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, has been lobbying to remove ideology from terror for years – making any attack on civilians for political or religious reasons a major crime. According to this approach, "freedom fighters" attacking military targets would be seen as "guerrillas" not "terrorists" if they fired on, say, Israeli soldiers at a roadblock or American warships in the Persian Gulf.

"If this definition which differs between terrorism and guerrilla warfare would be internationally accepted," he told CBC TV's Neil Macdonald this month, even terrorist organizations like "notorious Hamas" would think twice before killing innocent civilians. They would probably concentrate on military targets, Ganor predicted, or risk losing support among Palestinians. But Israel remains adamantly opposed to the idea, arguing that all armed resistance to its occupation of Palestinian land is terrorism. (The term "occupied" territory in this region, incidentally, has been endorsed by the United Nations.)

As far back at 1937, the League of Nations tried to settle the matter. It defined terrorism as "all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public." But the draft proposal was never ratified.

A 1999 UN resolution "reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Exactly what "criminal acts" are in this context, however, remains fuzzy. Slamming hijacked passenger planes into skyscrapers is unquestionably included. But not every violent act is as easily classified. Some people are reluctant to renounce "freedom fighters" or "liberation army rebels" on their own turf, for example, while others want to challenge military campaigns that kill civilians.

So the UN has still not taken a stand on some key questions. When a suicide bomber kills a crowd of shoppers in Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel etc. is it "terrorism" or merely tragic violence in a war over territory? What if only soldiers are killed? If troops end up shooting unarmed civilians is it "state terrorism"? And how should the world see governments that help foreign militia overthrow existing regimes?

"The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures," admits the UN's own Terrorism Prevention Branch in a document on its Web site.

The U.S. State Department, by the way, relies on its own guideline in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f (d): "The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Here "noncombatant" implies civilians and unarmed military support staff. The word "subnational" excludes the possibility that a country's national government could be directly guilty of terrorism.

In addition to outlining what constitutes terrorism, some countries have also drafted lists of groups that fall into the category.It's worth noting that the entries are regularly updated. Washington, for instance, recently revised its Federal Register. The Japanese Red Army and the Peruvian group Tupac Amaru were dropped. The Real IRA, accused of the 1998 bombing of Omagh in Northern Ireland, was added.

The original IRA, whose political wing, Sinn Fein, is involved in peace negotiations, remains off London's list. But Hezbollah, which holds seats in Lebanon's parliament, is considered a terrorist outfit.

Skeptics question the criteria used for classifying some organizations. For instance, until the early 1980s Iraq had a prominent spot on the U.S. list of countries supporting terrorism. When Baghdad went to war with Iran, one of America's bitter enemies, it was removed from the scroll. After the fighting stopped, Iraq was put back on.

Over time, some of the decisions made by governments have become conspicuous reminders of how subjective the process can be. For example, former South African president Nelson Mandela, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his struggle against apartheid, was once branded a terrorist.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:38 PM

Under Hague Convention:

Annex to the Convention
The Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1.

*The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

*To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

*To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

*To carry arms openly; and

*To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

*In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2.
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Sieges, and bombardments

Art. 22.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

*To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

*To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

*To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

*To declare that no quarter will be given;

*To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

*To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

*To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

*To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Art. 24.
Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.

Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.

Terrorist/ Terrorism: Point of View

The term has been applied promiscuously to all forms of violence. But to get beyond propaganda, terrorism must be defined according to the quality of the act itself, not the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of their cause. An act is not terrorism simply because one opposes the cause, or because someone labeled "terrorist" carries it out. Nor is an act not terrorism because a cause is deemed noble. Ends do not justify means.

Terrorism is older than the word itself, which has roots in the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution. The practice of threatening, injuring or killing innocent people for political, religious or other ideological reasons goes back to at least Biblical times. Zeal (Greek for "jealous") is the basis of zealot – the name given to a Jewish sect that led a bloody uprising against Roman occupation 2,000 years ago. And thug (Hindu for "thief" based on Sanskrit "sthagati" for "concealed person") originally referred to a member of a band of killers in India who waylaid and strangled travellers as part of a religious ritual.

Would "zealots" and "thugs" be considered terrorists today? There is disagreement over what the word means. Richard Baxter, a judge on the International Court of Justice, once said: "We have cause to regret that a legal concept of 'terrorism' was ever inflicted upon us. The term is imprecise; it is ambiguous; and above all, it serves no operative legal purpose." Some have returned to a different judge's famous comment about another word. In 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart admitted it might be impossible to "intelligibly" define obscenity, but quickly added "I know it when I see it."

That said, what are the qualities of terrorism?

All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. A terrorist act ordinarily would be considered a crime – murder, kidnapping, arson. Most terrorist acts would also violate the rules of war.

Ordinary criminals may terrify, but they are not terrorists. A single perpetrator pursuing his own cause may be a terrorist, but lone wolves often turn out to be lonely crackpots.The Unabomber was not a terrorist and neither is Nidal Malik Hassan.

Wars may involve acts of terror, but every act of extreme violence is not terrorism. The Nazi's "final solution," the London Blitz, the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall in the categories of genocide, war crimes, or simply elements of brutal, total war, but are not necessarily terrorism. Hitler wanted to physically eliminate all Jews, not terrorize them. Aerial bombardment, until recently, was imprecise. Do collateral casualties constitute terrorism if not the product of deliberate strategy? Probably not. But to say that an act fits better in the category of war crimes than terrorism does not lessen our need to condemn it.

What sets terrorism apart from other violence is this: terrorism consists of acts carried out in a dramatic way to attract publicity and create an atmosphere of alarm that goes far beyond the actual victims. Indeed, the identity of the victims is often secondary or irrelevant to the terrorists who aim their violence at the people watching. This distinction between actual victims and a target audience is the hallmark of terrorism and separates it from other modes of armed conflict. Terrorism is theater.

It is hard, when we are told, to know exactly where the line exists between terrorists and the brave would-be liberators of oppressed people–freedom fighters. Besides, many nations in the world have come into existence after lengthy struggles for liberation. Many pundits assert that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is purely a matter of perception. When our guy kills in battle, he’s a freedom fighter; when our enemy does, he is a terrorist. Similar acts get different labels depending on who is doing the labeling. What powerful states call terrorism may be an inevitable response to injustice.


posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:39 PM
The issue at hand is not whether fighters for a noble cause often act in reprehensible, cruel, and destructive ways. Such actions, however, have as their goal acquiring or re-acquiring something valuable, something highly desired. This may be land, sovereignty, or political goals such as liberty or economic equality. Freedom fighters usually come from oppressed or marginalized groups that have been deprived of something important, such as a homeland, and their struggle is to obtain it or gain it back. In other words, if there is a sinful motive in the dreams and actions of a freedom fighter, it is likely the sin of greed.

This is not so with terrorism. Terrorists are less concerned with acquisition than they are with destruction. They are usually clever enough to cloak their motives by hijacking the popular will of an oppressed people, but their wrath is not appeased when they acquire what they say they want. The real goal of terrorist groups is not acquiring but destroying. Terrorism is thus qualitatively different from armed movement for freedom and liberty. Terrorism is not like greed; it is an extreme form of destructive envy.

Envy can be neither sanctioned nor understood. It is a hateful attitude that, when played out, results in evil, destructive acts. It is a nihilistic poison that corrodes the soul of the one who envies and endangers the well-being of the envied. The same is true of terrorism. Terrorists will never be satisfied until the object of their hatred is destroyed.

Facing off with these nihilistic forces of terror is a frightening task, no doubt. Failing, however, to make appropriate moral distinctions about the true nature and motivation of our enemy strengthens the terrorist cause all the more. In this ongoing confrontation with evil, engaging in this type of moral equivocation is not something that our nation can afford to do.

Freedom Fighters/ Armed Resistance: Point of View

Freedom fighter is another term for those engaged in a struggle to achieve political freedom for themselves or obtain freedom for others. Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, in common use it may be restricted to those who are actively involved in an armed rebellion, rather than those who campaign for freedom by peaceful means (though they may use the title in its literal sense).

Generally speaking, freedom fighters are seen as people who are using physical force in order to cause a change in the political and or social order. This is done in response to oppression or perceived oppression by an internal or external body. Notable examples include the South African Umkhonto we Sizwe, or the Irish IRA, both of which were or are considered freedom fighters by supporters. However, a person who is campaigning for freedom through peaceful means may still be classed as a freedom fighter, though in common usage they are called political activists, as in the case of the Black Consciousness Movement. For example, in India, freedom fighter is a term used to describe the followers of Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian Independence movement against British rule, which was fought by peaceful non cooperation with the British government in India without the use of arms

A freedom fighter is different from a mercenary as they gain no direct material benefit from being involved in a conflict, though they may have no personal reason for being involved. Thus they are not considered mercenaries under the Geneva Convention and thus may in certain circumstances be protected by it (Mercenaries are not protected under the Geneva Convention and can be tried as criminals). The right to resist occupation is in any case recognised under international law and the Geneva convention.

Examples of (Armed) resistance movements: History

Pre-20th century
* Carbonari
* Sons of Liberty
* The Underground Railroad

Pre-World War II
* Irish Republican Army
* The Rising of East Karelians (1921-1922)
* Lwów Eaglets
* Non-Cooperation Movement (1919-1939)
* Filipino guerilla units after official end of Philippine-American War (1902-1913)
* Pancho Villa led a resistance movement/rebellion in Mexico in the early 20th century, as did the Zapata brothers.


posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:40 PM
World War II
* Albanian resistance movement
* Austrian resistance movement
* Belgian resistance movement
* Bulgarian resistance movement
* Burmese resistance movement
* Czech Resistance movement
* Chinese resistance movements
* Danish resistance movement
* Dutch resistance movement
* Forest Brothers
* French resistance movement
* German resistance movements
* Greek resistance movement
* Italian resistance movement
* Jewish resistance movement, including Jewish partisans and Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee
* Korean resistance movement
* Latvian resistance movement
* Lithuanian resistance during World War II
* Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian resistance movements
* Norwegian resistance movement
* Philippine resistance movement
* Polish Underground State and Polish resistance organizations
* Slovak resistance movement
* Soviet resistance movement
* Thai resistance movement
* Ukrainian Insurgent Army
* Yugoslav resistance movements
* Viet Minh

Freedom Fighters/Armed Resistance against Occupation:

Occupation and international humanitarian law:

1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.

2. When does the law of occupation start to apply?

The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied territories become applicable whenever territory comes under the effective control of hostile foreign armed forces, even if the occupation meets no armed resistance and there is no fighting.

The question of "control" calls up at least two different interpretations. It could be taken to mean that a situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. So, for example, advancing troops could be considered bound by the law of occupation already during the invasion phase of hostilities. This is the approach suggested in the ICRC's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1958).

An alternative and more restrictive approach would be to say that a situation of occupation exists only once a party to a conflict is in a position to exercise sufficient authority over enemy territory to enable it to discharge all of the duties imposed by the law of occupation. This approach is adopted by a number of military manuals.


posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:41 PM
3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
# The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
# Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
# The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
# The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
# To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
# The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
# Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
# Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
# Collective punishment is prohibited.
# The taking of hostages is prohibited.
# Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
# The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
# The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
# Cultural property must be respected.
# People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
# Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

4. What rights does the occupying power have regarding property and natural resources in the occupied territory?

Private property

Private property cannot be confiscated by the occupier.

Food and medical supplies may be requisitioned exclusively for the use of the occupation forces and administration personnel themselves (i.e. not for purposes of export outside of the occupied territory and not for the benefit of anyone beyond the occupying personnel, unless necessary for the benefit of the population under occupation itself) and only if the needs of the civilian population have been taken into account (GC IV, art. 55).

Public property

The occupying power may seize any movable property, belonging to the state, which may be used for military operations (HR, art. 53).

The occupant does not acquire ownership of immovable public property in the occupied territory, since it is only a temporary administrator. Subject to restrictions regarding their exploitation and use, it can nevertheless make use of public property, including natural resources, but it must safeguard their capital value, in accordance with the law of usufruct (H R, art. 55).

5. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes "actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.

6. What is the situation of people deprived of their liberty, during and after occupation?

Prisoners of war are captured members of armed forces and associated militias who meet the criteria laid down in the third Geneva Convention (GC III art. 4 A (2)); they are entitled to the rights granted in the Convention. All other people held in occupied territory are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), apart from very few exceptions, such as the nationals of the occupying power or its allies. However, in no case can persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the situation of occupation fall outside the customary minimum standards guaranteed in article 75 of Protocol I.

Prisoners of war and civilian internees must be released without delay after the end of hostilities. However, those who are accused of an indictable offence may remain in captivity until the end of criminal proceedings or completion of their sentence (GC III, art. 119 (5), GC IV, art. 133 (2)). Until their release, and as long as they are under the authority of the occupant, all those in custody remain protected by international humanitarian law (GC III, art. 5 (1) and GC IV, art. 6 (4)).

7. What is the basis for ICRC protection activities for persons deprived of their freedom during occupation and afterwards?

The ICRC has a legal right to visit anyone captured in relation to an international armed conflict, including situations of occupation, on the basis of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (GC III, arts 9 and 126, GC IV, arts 10 and 143, AP I, art. 81).

If violence continues after the end of occupation, the ICRC's protection activities may have the following legal bases:

In non-international armed conflicts, the ICRC bases its detention activities on article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions (and Additional Protocol II, where applicable). Article 3 establishes the ICRC’s right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict with a view to engaging in relief action and visiting persons detained for reasons related to the conflict.

In other situations of internal violence, which fall short of armed conflict, the ICRC may offer its services based on its right of initiative laid down in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (articles 5(2)(d) and 5(3))(see Visiting people deprived of their freedom: Legal bases)

In the end I would say, You Decide!

Sources: 219219.shtml

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

Terrorist is what you call them when they are fighting for an agenda that you disagee with.

Freedom Fighter is what you call them when they are fighting for an agenda that you agee with.

In History books, the winner is known as a freedom fighter and the loser is known as a terrorists.

Got it?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by HotSauce]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

The answer is within your post - ...

"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Here "noncombatant" implies civilians and unarmed military support staff.

A lot of terror crimes are indiscriminate . They take out even members
of their own cause .
The only effective change , can be through non-violent political action ,
where all sides negotiate . e.g Northern Ireland [as soon as peace is
announced and followed , real change can happen]

The United Nations cannot , and will not , back up a cause that
is criminal in nature .

... =

[edit on 5-12-2009 by radarloveguy]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by radarloveguy

The thread was more to discuss about what difference is between a freedom fighter and terrorist/ armed resistance etc.

However, keeping in mind the armed resistance movements in history I have to disagree that the "only effective change", can be through non-violent political action.

You can take current example of Tibet, what have they been able to achieve through non-violence means? Even during India's freedom struggle there were 2 banners, Non Violent led by Mahatma Gandhi and armed resistance for eg. Chandrashekhar Azad. Both were equally responsible to gain freedom of India.

That saying I do not propose violence but only the people under digress would be most suitable to choose the way the follow.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by HotSauce

I wish it was as simple as that. Everyone have their History. In one's history they may be called terrorist but in a different countries history they can be called freedom fighters.

For example

A notable example are the controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, where a number of convicted World War II war criminals are interred. Chinese and Korean representatives have often protested against the visits of Japanese politicians to the shrine. The visits have in the past led to severe diplomatic conflicts between the nations, and Japanese businesses were attacked in China after a visit by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the shrine was widely reported and criticized in Chinese and Korean media.[1]


Or if history is out of reach, visit this news link:
Japanese MPs visit war memorial

That saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:57 PM
I'm just glad we have brave patriotic men and women who are willing to give their lives to protect our freedoms here in the Greatest Country on earth....and hunt down and slaughter all those terrorist all around the world..who want to kill us for our freedom...

Like those nineteen guys with box cutters from Saudi Arabia did on 9-11......thank God for the Patriot Act that has also kept us much safer now that we know there are terrorist all around who want to kill us....

God Bless Amerika.....we have won...

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:00 PM
I personally believe that a terrorist is someone who's objectives are misaligned from his peoples. His intention is where his superiors say it is. A freedom fighter is the person who wants the best intentions for his people.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by rainfall

Ofcourse those were terrorist. As if you read my above post, it's mentioned Terrorism is a theater. But here are we talking about what separates a Freedom fighter from a terrorist.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
I personally believe that a terrorist is someone who's objectives are misaligned from his peoples. His intention is where his superiors say it is. A freedom fighter is the person who wants the best intentions for his people.

I agree with you up to an extent. You are forgetting even freedom fighter/ armed resistance/militias have chain of command and are led by a superior/commander for eg. You made a good point though "A freedom fighter is the person who wants the best intentions for his people."

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:20 PM
It has become easy to define each of these groups in my opinion. If the United Nations or any of their member governments refer to a group as terrorists then they are actuallly fighting for their freedom. If they are the United Nations or a member government, then they are most likely terrorists. Simple as that!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by Redwookieaz

haha...that a bit ironic. Thanx for replying.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:27 PM

By those criteria, the US is an occupying power of Native American lands, and has violated many of the rules: drafting Native Americans (back when there was a draft), forcible deportations, etc.

So, should Leonard Peltier be considered a freedom fighter? I should think so, A.I.M. seems to satisfy the requirements. His case violates the rules, too.

How quick would the US label Native Americans who fought for their peoples' freedom terrorists? I'm sured the day will come, and soon, if the US continues to ignore treaty obligations and continues its arrogant denial of our independence.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

Glad to! Thanks for the post! S&F!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by apacheman

I agree that we shall most likely see soon enough. Well in many cases we have already as veterans and constitutionalists and the like are already referred to as terrorists by the US gov. That should tell you that while my above post sounds like a joke, it is in fact truth!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Also yes the Natives have continually been given the shaft and literally terrorized by the gov. for the entire time the US has existed. They nearly committed genocide of a once great and proud people!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:50 PM
i am trying to find a definition that is fitting here. please, if you can, lend me your assistance: what would you call dropping a nuclear weapon over a civilian city? twice. what do you call this exactly? genocide or terrorism? war crime? are certain people excluded for these definitions? and why?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in