Was unsure were to post this so here goes lol this is the 3rd installment of the padded cell series the others are:
Taking a look at Greek Mythology
alternate realities, multi universes and dimensions
This post came about after a rather heated discussion with my husband a few nights ago, every so often we like to debate stuff
last month it was
aliens, this months pick was (for some obscure reason) Terrorism and freedom fighters (how we got on to it is a mystery we were talking about Egyptian
glyphs
). The basic fact that we agreed on was, that in all simplistic terms, war is an act of terrorism. so technically the wars in Iraq,
Libya, Afghanistan are act of terrorism,
but and its a
BIG But, to most of the American /Uk people it is not deemed as
such, here is were the difficulty (at least for me) lies.
Over the years i have come to realize a very fine point, the line between these 2 groups is a very fine line and almost invisible it seems. what is a
freedom fighter? what is a terrorist? There is a saying that i like it states
''One mans Freedom fighter is another mans terrorist''. When does
one cross into the other, and who are we to define a culture for terrorism or define them as freedom fighters? perhaps this is so we can sleep at
night, because anything we dont understand tends to get pushed aside and labeled, be it rightly or wrongly. Here in this thread i wanted to take a
look at both of these definitions, and perhaps find out what
if any the true differences are between the 2, and if its more down to our
individual assessments, beliefs, culture and such that defines (for us anyway) what is so called right and wrong.
The confusion comes (at least for me) when looking at past events/riots etc, many people were/have been classified as being a terrorist but are seen
now a days to be respectable people, even leaders of independent countries. The leaders of the Stern Gang and the Irgun Zvai Leumi of Israel, Jomo
Kenyata and Robert Mugabe of Africa and others were described as terrorists before, but now sit and dine with kings and presidents. The Irish
Republican Army is regarded by the British as a terrorist organization, but many Americans think of them as freedom fighters worthy of financial
support. While most terrorists are people with no legitimate standing, some are actually government officers and employees tasked with acts of terror.
Osama bin Laden was supported by the United States before, not then regarded as a terrorist. But he was regarded as one now. I need not mention the
many Latin American leaders who carried out a reign of terror in their countries, installed and supported by foreign governments.
Definitions of both Terrorist & Freedom fighter according to Dictionary.com &
The Free Dictionary
Terrorist/Terrorism
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result.
Thesaurus
terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover
for terrorist activities
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals
that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
radical cell, terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells
usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"
cyber-terrorist, cyberpunk, hacker - a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of
cyber-terrorism
Jacobin - a member of the radical movement that instituted the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution
radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions
sleeper - a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged
signal
suicide bomber - a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people
Cultural Dictionary
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal
connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on
civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but
the United States has increasingly become its main target.
freedom fighter
One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a militant revolutionary
Thesaurus
freedom fighter - a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel
mutineer - someone who is openly rebellious and refuses to obey authorities (especially seamen or soldiers)
crusader, meliorist, reformer, reformist, social reformer - a disputant who advocates reform
revolutionary, revolutionist, subversive, subverter - a radical supporter of political or social revolution
Young Turk - a member of one or more of the insurgent groups in Turkey in the late 19th century who rebelled against the absolutism of Ottoman
rule
Now take a close look at both definitions, do you actually see much of a difference between the 2 of them? Taking a more simplistic view of both, A
"freedom fighter" battles soldiers and other official representatives of enemy forces. A "terrorist" deliberately targets and tries to kill innocent
men, women and children. But then again there is the confusion, People we would describe as freedom fighters have and do attacked civilians and use
terroristic tactics. The Israeli terrorists did so in the struggle for independence, as did the Vietnamese in there struggle against the US. Another
example of confused lines would be is the French Resistance fighting Nazi occupation in WWII, regularly killed the innocent family members of French
Nazi collaborators. They also blew up trains and cafes with innocent civilians among the dead and injured. Yet they were not condemned for those
actions, because they were fighting the Nazis. Other small examples of crossed lines taken from
UK answers
To the British, the "minutemen" of the US revolution were "terrorists" but to Americans then and now, they were "freedom fighters".
The Partisans in France, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, Poland etc during WW-2 were "terrorists" to the Nazi Germans but "freedom fighters" to the local
population.
The Basque rebels are considered terrorists by the Spanish but freedom fighters by people of Basque heritage.
The "Tamil Tigers" in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) are considered terrorists by the Ceylonese but freedom fighters by the Tamils.
The Palmarch and especially the "Stern Gang" were Jewish freedom fighters to the Jews in British Palestine but considered "terrorists" to the British.
The "Stern Gang" only blew up the military wing of the King David Hotel and no civilians were killed.
The Viet Minh and its military wing, the Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN) were terrorists to the French during the First Indochina War (War of
Independence 1947-1954) but were freedom fighters to the Vietnamese population.
The National Liberation Front of Southern Vietnam (NLF and often wrongly called the Viet Cong) were terrorists to the US and the illegal (under
international law and the "1954 Geneva Agreements on Indochina") Republic of South Vietnam but were freedom fighters to the majority of the people in
southern Vietnam.
The Algerian Liberation Front were terrorists to the French during the War of Independence, but were freedom fighters to the Algerian population.
The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was a terrorist organisation to many in Israel and the rest of the world, but to many (Muslim)
Palestinians they were freedom fighters. It was the PLO who started attacking civilian targets including civilian aircraft. Hamas and similar
organisations are carrying on the actions of the PLO in also attacking civilian targets as well as military
The Mujaheddin, including Al Quaida, (armed and trained by the US) who fought against the Russians were considered terrorists by the Russians, but
freedom fighters by the Afghanistanis and the rest of the world.
Now Al Quaida, since it has turned against the materialistic, and in the view of many Muslims, immoral US, the US considers them as terrorists. Many
Muslims consider them as fighters for Islamic independence and moral values.
So in actual fact is is very much down to perspective depending on which side of the fence you stand on. As you can see so far in this thread the
lines are very much blurred. Many people including various government agencies have struggled to come up with a true definition of terrorist and
freedom fighter, one such article called
Terrorist, Guerrilla, Freedom Fighter: What’s the
Difference? tries its best to define both and IMO does a pretty good job in some ways.
Do terrorists see themselves as terrorists?
No. The French revolutionaries who coined the term "terrorist" in the 1790s thought it had positive connotations, but today, it’s hard to find
anyone who wants to be known as a terrorist. Instead, individuals and organizations branded as terrorists tend to prefer calling themselves "freedom
fighters," "urban guerrillas," or "holy warriors," among other things. For instance, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (a.k.a. Carlos the Jackal), the mastermind
of numerous terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s, described himself in 1994 as a revolutionary and "above all a family man."
Even though most people think they can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition.
The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups
or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy
chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:
It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
It is designed to change the existing political order. It is not merely criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get
money.
It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.
What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
It’s tough to say, according to experts—largely because they are overlapping categories. Terrorism is a tactic, and "freedom fighting" describes a
motivation, so a person or group could be engaged in both at the same time. Experts say whether one calls a particular group "terrorists" or "freedom
fighters" often largely depends on whether one thinks the group’s ends justify its violent means—which, in turn, depends on one’s
politics
Can states be terrorists?
Again, it’s a question of definition. The State Department and many leading experts define terrorists as members of subnational groups, not
government leaders or states—thereby placing even such dedicated abusers of human rights as Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia beyond the bounds of the
epithet "terrorist." These experts often define Milosevic-style atrocities as human rights abuses or war crimes. But some terrorism scholars do
include violence perpetrated by governments in their definitions of terrorism, if these assaults involve state violence intentionally aimed at
civilians and designed to instill fear or influence public opinion. Also, states can sponsor terrorism by providing sanctuary; weapons; training; or
logistical, financial, or diplomatic support to terrorist groups. The State Department lists seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba,
Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
In all honesty though am still confused, are you?
another good article i came across was called
Terrorists – and Freedom Fighters? it outlines some
good points. Here are some snippets of point from the article
Arrested in Donegal near a car loaded with 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 250 pounds of explosives, he was sentenced to six months by a court
whose jurisdiction he denied, "I am a member of the Derry Brigade of the (IRA) and am very, very proud of it."
A Londonderry official called him "a cold-blooded ruthless terrorist (who) will weigh up the consequences of his actions only in terms of benefit to
the IRA, regardless of the cost in human lives." Another said he was a "fanatic ... responsible for mass murder."
He himself has spoken of the "legal and moral right of the IRA to kill a British soldier at any time," and was once quoted: "Freedom can be gained
only at the point of an IRA rifle, and I apologize to no one for saying that we support the freedom fighters of the IRA."
He is Martin McGuinness. And the same March 13 New York Times that carries the picture of millions of Spaniards protesting the murderous terror attack
on the Madrid trains has a photo of McGuinness chatting amiably with John Kerry before McGuinness spoke at Harvard.
Is it then true that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? After all, many Irish consider McGuinness and his Sinn Fein comrade Gerry
Adams, whom Bill Clinton invited to the White House for St. Patrick's Day, as freedom fighters in the tradition of the "martyrs" of the "Easter
Rising" of 1916, celebrated by the poet W. B. Yeats.
As the president swears eternal war on terrorism, it is time to ask: Who is a terrorist? Exactly what is terrorism? Have we not ourselves
sometimes breached our commitment "never to negotiate with terrorists"? Have we Americans also engaged in terrorism?
Terrorism has been defined as the murder or massacre of innocent men, women and children for political ends. In that sense, 9-11 qualifies, as do the
Hamas bombings of buses in Jerusalem.
Ariel Sharon, as head of Force 101, is accused of massacring scores of Palestinian villagers at Qibya in 1953 in a reprisal raid for the murder of
an Israel woman and her children.
Nobel Prize winner Yasser Arafat has been charged in the cold-blooded assassination of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel in the Sudan in 1973. His PLO is an
umbrella group embracing organizations for whom the weapon of choice in the war against Israel is terror.
Nelson Mandela, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, did not get life imprisonment on Robben Island for sitting in at lunch counters, but if memory
serves, for plotting terror to overthrow the regime.
Jomo Kenyatta, the "Grand Old Man" of Africa in the 1960s, was the leader of the Mau Mau in the 1950s. Ahmed Ben Bella led Algeria's war of
independence, in which terror was the insurgents' weapon and torture the counter-weapon of the French.
What is Nagasaki – the atomic bombing of a defenseless city of a defeated nation – other than an act of slaughter, killing 40,000 men, women
and children in minutes to force Japan's warlords to submit to America's will?
But that was war, we say, and Japan was the aggressor. Does that also justify Dresden? Is air terror permissible in a just war if a nation can
demonstrate it was the victim of aggression?
Saddam's Iraq did not threaten us, did not attack us, did not want war with us, did not have weapons of mass destruction. Yet, we attacked, invaded
and occupied Iraq. And when Iraqis attack our troops, we call it terror and we call them terrorists.
In par with the perception point i decided to ask some people who i know (both on line and off line) to see what they would define as a
terrorist and freedom fighter, and who if anyone they would perceive as such, think of it as a little experiment (that obviously has no merit what so
ever in the scientific community ) the question i asked was : what is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, and name one
person from both groups that would fit the category
Some Answers i got
Locololo - a freedom fighter would be - stalin. and for a terrorist i would pick Joan of arc. the difference between the two is perception.
perception wise, stalin was both a freedom fighter, and a terrorist » george washington as well
Chelsea - aged 14 ( my eldest kid) - Terrorists go after people they think are enemy's, but they also fight for their country, religion and
beliefs like the 9/11 attacks, but then you can call someone who fights to free their country for beliefs and religion a freedom fighter. bin laden
was a terrorist, but to his people he was a freedom fighter. goerge bush was a terrorist to many cultures but a freedom fighter because he fought to
free people.
Xavi1000 - i would say Rebels in Libya are terorists, but in every nation it is different, every conflict is different.For example Western
media call albanian rebels freedom fighters in Macedonia conflict in 2001. but i KNOW they are terorists, im from Macedonia
Goathief - That's not a simple answer roni - the lines have been blurred a lot recently. » A lot depends on which side of the fence you are
sitting on, and also the targets. I would say that freedom fighters tend to target infrastructure, terrorists target civilians. That's the biggest
difference for me
Daddybear - Maybe I should tell you the real story of a freedom fighter named Goyaałé, back in the 1860's this Goyaałé was just your normal
Apache running around the southwest... when he and as his father went into a mexican town to trade for goods his village was attacked...he learned
that his wife mother and all his kids were killed. reports say Goyaałé cried by the river that day weeping in sorrow and loss. the other men in the
tribe decide a reprisle was called for so all these apaches attacked a small mexican town. Goyaałé was so greifstricken he fought the killer of his
family with wild abandon. can you guess what nicname the Mexica army gave him????....geronimo. my answer is that is how you go from a normal family
man to a freedom fighter.... of course he would have been a terrorist to the Mexicans.
Rising_Against - A “freedom fighter” fights for what is right in the name of freedom. I.e. Giving freedom to others whom deserve it for
example... A terrorist purposefully causes terror in the name of terror itself. I.E. A purposeful attempt at "scaring" or tormenting others for
whatever reason. People claim the US can be designated as terrorists but personally, I don’t believe they’re purposefully causing terror therefore
to me they’re not terrorists at all. Picking one person from both categories? ..Hmm, It's the harder question. There's no telling what motivates any
single person. And I mean what truly motivates them to do what they're doing. Anyone can fit into the definition of terrorist at some point.. It's who
should be designated as one which is where the debate lies IMO.
Maurice - The war in iraq is an act of terrorism in my opinion, Mandela was also seen as a terrorist to his governemt and other people but he
was seen as a freedom fighter by forgein governemtns. In reality there is no difference though, because in each senario people die needlessly all in
the name of so called freedom.
Ricky - Its a tough call, martin luther king was seen by thousands to be a fighter for the freedom of black slaves and for equality, to the KKK
and some other factions he *could* have been deemed as a terrorist, to the kkk and such his antics could have been perceived as acts of terror.
HOWEVER thats a poor analogy and not one i agree with
it all depends what you believe, how you were raised, your culture and society. Another
way to look at it, moses in a way was a freedom fighter, he fought for his people, The knights of the round table - when fighting the crusades to many
cultures could be deemed as terrorists. again its how you perceive people/groups
Jordan - aged 8 (one of my sons) There is no difference, people kill and die for stupid things in the end. the war is wrong, if you want to be
free, you have to be good.
Abby - aged 15 ( my eldests friend) - Hitler was a terrorist pure and simple, he ruled through fear of the jews and of the unknown. i dont
really know any true freedom fighters because to some people they think they are terrorists, like the us president and the UK government, we go to
another country to fight, bomb and kill people in the name of freedom. but tell me who is the true terrorist in it us or them.
The above is just some views from people i have asked. So really its about perception imo, what do the rest of you think about it?
ATS Related thread
Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?
Terrorist is Freedom Fighters
Terrorists vs. Freedom Fighters... a debate
The GunPowder Plot
Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter
What is the difference between a Terrorist and a Ressistance fighter?
U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list
Some links that may be of interest
Freedom Fighters
Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom
Fighter?
The difference between freedom-fighters and terrorists is not perception but terminology
Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters
edit on 23/6/11 by ronishia because: spelling gremlins
edit on 23/6/11 by ronishia because: (no reason
given)
edit on 23/6/11 by ronishia because: (no reason given)
