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: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:06 PM
Honestly does it really matter, how a person or group is labeled??

Personally it all boils down to the tactics that are used to acheive the goal that matters to me.

But in my opinion a freedom fighter can be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist at the same time!

Could I respect a group that targets civilians? my answer would be no,
Or one that sticks to military targets to acheive it's aims? now that places me on the fence.. as then my answer would have to be based on what the aim of the group is, and if violence is really the only way left.

Simply put I could not support a group that deliberatly targets civilians.

however it is a complex world full of grey areas, but in my mind I can simplify it down into 3 catagories (these are just my interpretations, I am sure other people will interpret things differently)

Deliberatly targeting, miltary or political targets with the express aim of maining or killing military or political targets

Deliberatly targeting a civilian target with the express aim of maiming or killing a military or political target

Deliberatly targeting a civilian target with the express aim of maiming or killing civilians

The first two catagories in my mind can fall within freedom fighters style tactics, but the second catagory is where I begin to struggle, as I wonder is there really a need to justify killing civilians! that would be a deeply moral question that would take a lot of soul searching for me ever to resolve, the third for sits within terorist style tactics and should never take place.

So for me personaly, those who just target civilians are simply terrorists and I am not sure I could ever find a good enough justification for that.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:36 PM
Wow. Alright.

Let's see. What do you call someone who sends a woman with down syndrome into a pet market....when she's strapped with explosives.

I'd say that person is probably a terrorist.

Someone who sets out to destroy someone because they don't agree with their religion or ideas = terrorist.

Someone who's fighting an army = fighter/soldier.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:43 PM
The Vikings struck terror into the hearts of the villages and towns they pillaged. The Mongol Horde struck terror into the hearts of the kingdoms they invaded.

Little children strike terror in the hearts of parents everywhere when they have phones on your cell phone plan and the monthly bill arrives!

Terror is a word; terrorism is a word, just as patriot and freedom fighters are words.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Conversely all children on parent’s cell phone plans are really just terrorists! The little brats darn well know what they are doing with all those third party and digital lounge charges and don’t think for a moment that they don’t do just to be mean and strike terror into the hearts of their parents.

How can we end terrorism? Take there phones away? Ha! They will just get back at you some other way.

Murder is murder no matter what flag you wrap yourself in, what book you read that justifies it, or what politician, leader, or orator extols it be done.

Violence is equal and there are no innocents. You might not be a combatant but your tax dollars are used to arm combatants. You might not be a combatant but your indifference to the violence in the world and your willingness to pay for it and accept it creates that same cycle of violence that begets more violence.

So you have enough money and another importance that causes you not to have to pick up a gun yourself. You have enough money though to extort to pay the person that does, and buy them their gun, that makes you how innocent?

Not at all, because the sad truth is that the people of this planet have been brainwashed into believing that violence solves problems and disputes and violence is the answer,

Violence that just begets more violence, and in this world you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

If you are paying for these wars through willingly paying your taxes ‘just because it’s the law’ you were terrorized into that!

If you are paying for these wars YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT! The fact that someone tells you it’s right DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT, the fact that you have no backbone or real moral compass just means that YOU HAVE NO BACK BONE OR REAL MORAL COMPASS.
Don’t feed the beast. Those who live by the sword die by the sword, and this nation was founded on violence and has build itself on violence and even exports violence all over the world.

Shame on the person who thinks there is a real reason for that other than YOUR JUST VIOLENT!

Terrorism, freedom fighters, all words for politicians to CREATE A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE AND MAINTAIN IT.

Family Plan, now Family Plan there is a word for you! Rotten no good little ringtone, video game, got to talk to a live psychic and charge it to Dad terrorists.

That’s the real threat in my world, how many Muslims have increased my monthly cell phone costs? None!

Stared and flaged DecemberRain.

[edit on 6/12/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:55 PM
Read a history book from the UK...
Im sure the revolutionary war is titled "american revolt"

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

Wow! Great work December_Rain.

If it was up to me you would get an +A on your term paper.

I have to agree, we need a definative, leagal, universally agreed upon definition of "terrorism". Unfortunately, Isreal seems to be the chief stumbling block in this effort. To them anyone who opposes them is a terrorist, or failing that, anti-semitic. Isreal, of course is NEVER to be labled as such.

I don't know how they get away with it, they have only one vote in the UN and don't have veto authority. But since they pretty much dictate the US's foreign policy, they get away with murder (and genocide).

The US goes along as well because a fuzzy definition of terrorism allows us to continue our perpetual war to fill the pockets of military contractors.

Oh yeah, and to fight terror too. Almost forgot that part.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by FortAnthem]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:26 PM



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:42 PM
Most of the time, "freedom fighters" are the terrorists.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:50 PM
The definition of each and the attributes that separate them are becoming more blurred as each month passes us by. The problem with your approach is that it will inevitably lead to making excuses for violent acts committed against others because there is a seemingly justified cause. Of course, each cause will be accepted or denounced by the person based upon their opinions and political views.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Thank you for saying it, Proto. If our taxes are used to commit acts of terrorism against civilian populations then WE ARE TERRORISTS TOO,
this is our national shame America. How could we do against others what we thought was so awful when done to us? Especially with these Predator drone strikes as an example, our rule is we can kill up to 30 innocents as long as we get one Al Qaeda "bad guy". Anyone care to not call that terrorism?
I agree we do badly need clear definitions amongst nations about what constitutes acts of war and terrorism. It becomes hard to defend against what becomes common knowledge.
Very good thread. nicely written!

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Asktheanimals]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Asktheanimals]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:27 PM
Seems to me the simplest definition of terrorist organizations is that they use mercenaries either paid or psyops manipulated.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:46 PM
Great topic and a very productive one that may hopefully lead to somewhere.

as someone posted before about the nuclear bombs that were dropped on japan, to me that was terrorism. Because as the OP could not have wrote it better himself : TERRORISM IS THEATER and the atomic bombs were the most cruel form of theater at that. Why? Because the u.s. air force could have dropped the bomb on the japanese emperor himself. Or on the high command in Tokyo. But they chose to drop 2 bombs on japanese citys of minor importance, because they wanted to put an effect on their enemys in office and not kill them and thus force the mentioned enemy high command to surrender through terror and/or frustration and accept their defeat... Some say this spared the lifes of many men, who would have died at an invasion, but essentially they wanted to end the war as soon as possible through the most brutal militaristic tactic called "terror". Many, many civilians died for that purpose and i cannot possibly justify something like that if i want to keep the status as a feeling human being infront of myself.

And here i want to suggest the theory that real "terror" in its purest form as a militaristic tactic can effectively only be deployed by an official state organisation or government against another state organisation or government.

please let me put my reasoning for this:
if an organisation or government follows the goal of changing or even ending the "way of live" of another people or culture, then of course one of their means might be through fear / terror as they have the resources to achieve this realisticly and over time.
BUT, how can INDIVIDUALS without resources achieve such a goal over time, especially when they commit suicide in the act as a part of their tactic of "terror"?
What did they gain for themselves ? Who`s way of life did they change ?
What was their point ? Can we really call this "terror" or just "tragic lunacy" ? Maybe "desperate fundamentalism".
The thing is, if a government reacts to such acts with the deployment of several armys in two major wars overseas and passing of several laws in the aftermath, then this government has something to gain out of this.
And the real "terror" is used against the governments of the region of the middle east, to frustrate/terrorize them into finally accepting the U.S. as the superior player in that part of the world?? That would be the only gain to anyone in this whole "terror"-game at the moment in history.

But i want to make clear that in my opinion the whole "West" (including Israel) is profiting from this situation and the U.S.A. is just doing the dirty work for everybody.
I also want to make clear that english is not my first language and i am sorry for any mispelling.
And if you are still reading this after that long post of mine,
Thank you.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:30 PM
What I have seen here in Iraq in my first deployment back in 2004, these so called terrorists were willing to fight back against overwhelming odds. we had bradleys and abrahm tanks. All they had were AK's and RPG's, but against those odds they fought back till the last man standing. Once the battle was over, I wondered if we were actually the terrorists to these people and they were just trying to get us out of their country. If these people are indeed freedom fighters then perhaps we were the ones that were wrong the whole time.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:07 PM
Great Thread.
I still wonder why we feel the need to label everything.
Certainly what Americans did to the Native peoples was and is awful, so was Rome against much of Europe as one time. We should try to learn from history and not repeat but that seems to be beyond us mere humans.

On current topics - Would AGW be a form of terrorism? Certainly showing films like 'An Inconvenient Truth' to school children is propaganda, and certainly does scare them. Does the reduction in food production to make biofuels causing death from starvation count as 'violence'?

How about swine flu? Certainly a lot of people are scared. Certainly a lot of people have rushed out to get vaccine. Certainly people have died from the vaccine.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:58 PM
Huge thread Rain Man.

My definition of a terrorist-any person or entity that tries to force its Unlawful will upon another person or entity by force of persuasion.

e.g. My government that forces me to pay unlawful income taxes by threat of prison.

Good thread. S&F

edit to add-Due to Echo3Foxtrot Unlawful

[edit on 12/6/2009 by endisnighe]

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:00 AM
I think most of the Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters blur the line between terrorism and fighting for freedom. An Iraqi that shoots a U.S. service member is a freedom fighter. Surely a tragedy but we have no right to occupy their country and an Iraqi gunning down a service member is justifiable. It's ironic because if the resistance fighters stopped fighting altogether we would have no more excuses such as occupation for stability and we would have to get out of there. When a man straps a bomb to his chest and blows up a bunch of service members he is still a freedom fighter. When they start indiscriminately killing civilians to progress a political agenda no matter what that agenda is, that is what most people would call terrorism.

So to summarize, the political agenda of resisting the occupation: justified.

Killing a U.S. service member to progress that agenda: justified

Killing civilians: Never justified, it is terrorism.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:06 AM
I think the lines between terrorist and freedom fighter are are very blurry...certainly from my perspective.

When i lived in South Africa during apartheid, the majority of SA(ie. the black community...90%)saw the African National Congress(ANC) as freedom fighters, whereas the 10% remaining on the whole saw the ANC as terrorists...

Fast Forward a year or so after democratic elections in 1994 and the majority of white S.Africans thought Nelson Mandela was a great leader, even though he had been brought to power in part through "terrorism" and a massive bombing campaign targeting civilians....

I met the great man in March of 1994 whilst on holiday in Natal...because I had my camera with me I approached his group(Mandela was taking a break between electioneering in Natal to stroll on the beach...this was "pre" elections so the the whitey's hadnt been won over by his charms at this stage...)and asked for a photo with him.He duly obliged, even signing a 10 Rand note, the only paper I had on my possession.

When I returned home, sooo many people were aghast that I would have a photo of myself shaking his hand that they no longer wanted to be acquainted with me..yet the very same people, when reminded of their sentiments a year or so later,felt ashamed of there prejudices towards this "terrorist"....and voted for his party in the next election!!

Maybe theres no hard and fast rule regarding the OP....certainly in South Africa that was the case.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:13 AM
As a Marine this is what we're taught is the definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

To me that doesn't tell me a whole heck of a lot. But I'm gonna take it as more of a general definition or terrorism.

To me, the insurgents in Afghanistan are the terrorists. They have used unlawful violence to attempt to instill fear and intimidate our government due to religious reasons. Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. I know what I've seen and heard. I know how, or to the best of my ability, to discern truth from scuttle butt.

To some people, I'm part of the terrorists and the people that are killing my friends, family and brothers-in-arms are the freedom fighters.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by apacheman
That is the straight truth. Let's get back to the beginning.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:23 AM
It is a very good question terrorist or freedom fighter i find it hard not to see the USA in Iraq as anymore then being Terrorist but also on the same hand see them in Afghanastan as Freedom Fighters.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:24 AM
Both are seeking freeDOM, free domination, the right to ruthlessly dominate and manipulate another, as if it bears no responsibility, as if the domination is free, bearing no cost. Freedom is a lie. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Some seek to manipulate and dominate others economically. Some seek to manipulate and dominate others into being a specific "character" in their official life script. It is all the same stupid, vicious, self-imploding concept.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in