[Developer]

What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Post definitions.

[rjenkinson]

how they treat innocent lives.

-r.

[Sherwin]

Freedom fighters fight for a place.

Terrorists fight for a cause.

[cpt kangarooski]

If you use terror, you're a terrorist, regardless of what else you might be, how noble your cause, or whatever.

[voodoo]

I thought this was a new game!

TERRORIST II - FREEDOM FIGHTER

(I grew up in the 80s hombre!)

[angaq0k]

I go by this definition of terrorist:

"Whoever is handling a weapon (or any media standing for, or usable as, or using a message with the potential to inflict fear, terror, or the anticipation of physical, sexual, psychological, economical, religious, or emotional trauma).

Actually, I believe that to define these 2 terms is extremely difficult because both have similar consequences: death and terror. Although it is possible to inflict terror without death (we have seen that in Qu�bec in the '70s, although they killed their hostage in the end), most terrorist attacks will have collateral damage (just like any military action imho) because it serves the purpose of inflicting terror.

One would think that the "accidental" killing of innocent as collateral would be OK in the realm of the objectives of "freedom fighters", but I see it far less acceptable when innocent victims are accounted for as "the necessary martyrs for the cause". To me, these are not much different than serial raping.

To define these terms, we need to use the language of politics, which is always relative to whoever is in power and whoever is oppressed. To complicate things further, oppressors can turn victims and vice-versa. With time, one may have difficulty differentiate the 2. Politics is no easy matters, right from the start, and rare are the people who claim to be totally satisfied with one regime or another. Majority rule, and minority may suffer.

And the more the dissatisfaction increases, the worst the reaction can be...

I think we need to make a difference also between the foot soldiers and the leaders. I suspect many of those leaders of not being as clean as their ideals can be. As a consequence, the foot soldiers, whom are sometimes, amongst those who suffer the most, can easily be drawn into the sphere of influence of these leaders.

The consequence is that although the cause can be just, the modus operandum may be not...

I think we should always look at the claims of the terrorists/freedom fighters, so we can at least verify the legitimacy of those claims, and therefore see if it is possible to prevent further terrorist consequences. Possibly freedom fighters are terrorists because their claims are unrealistic from the point of view of the majority. Can the majority change its "mind"?

And then things become more complicated because human nature is, very complicated, and the search for power and control is in any of us. We all have the potential of becoming terrorists or freedom fighters; all that is required is a set of conditions related to poverty, injustice, poor education, alienation, inequalities and feelings powerlessness. That makes people more gullible sometimes, but also, on other times, rightfully angry about their conditions...

The worst anyone can do is to ignore those claims and not try anything to look for reasonable compromise. But basically, this usually starts at the individual level; if we cannot provide justice, respect and a fair chance to everyone, the chances for terrorism are on the rise (but not unavoidable).

In the end, either terrorism or freedom fights have greater chances of being avoidable with less nationalism and fairer share of the wealth, with equal opportunities.

But either way, violence to get justice is unacceptable, whether the targets are innocent or guilty.

We are capable of much better, I am sure of it.

That is IMHO, for I am no expert in these matters.

[hyteckit]

Freedom Fighter :: Hackers

AS

Terrorist :: Script Kiddies

[clt2]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Freedom Fighter :: Hackers

AS

Terrorist :: Script Kiddies

[Millennium]

A freedom fighter conscientiously attacks only known and provable military targets. A terrorist intentionally attacks noncombatants.

That's it; the only difference.

[BRussell]

By juxtaposing these two terms, the implication is that freedom fighter = someone you like and terrorist = someone you don't like. Like propaganda vs. information. It's all subjective and just depends on which side you're on.

But I don't think that's fair. Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians, and it is illegal everywhere. The term freedom fighter doesn't have any legal definition. Freedom fighters might engage in terrorism, in which case they would be engaging in illegal acts.

It's kind of like asking what's the difference between a traitor and a patriot. Treason has a specific meaning, and is illegal. Patriot doesn't really mean anything, and is entirely subjective. There really isn't any symmetry, just like there isn't any between terrorist and freedom fighter, despite people's best efforts to suggest there is.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Developer:
What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Post definitions.

Perspective

[theolein]

Originally posted by Developer:
What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Post definitions.

Depends only on whose side you're on.

[eklipse]

'Terrorist' is just the commonly used term for a Muslim freedom fighter.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by eklipse:
'Terrorist' is just the commonly used term for a Muslim freedom fighter.

So the IRA are Muslims?!!?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
So the IRA are Muslims?!!?

Some Mullah was probably funding them....

I'm sure the link is there if you're willing to look hard enough......

[BRussell]

Originally posted by theolein:
Depends only on whose side you're on.

It shouldn't. It's wrong to support terrorism even if they're on your side.

[lil'babykitten]

There is no universally accepted definition of either. And there never will be.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
A freedom fighter conscientiously attacks only known and provable military targets. A terrorist intentionally attacks noncombatants.

That's it; the only difference.

By that definition Churchill was a terrorist.

[Taliesin]

Freedom fighters are those that fight only military targets, like the PLO and Hamas in the occupied areas.

Freedom fighters become terrorists when they seek revenge for killed civilians of their own people and cross the occupation-area-border to the homeland of the occupier and kill civilians of the occupier's people as retaliation, like the suicide-bombers of Hamas.

When that happens all freedom fighters are called terrorists, as they are members of the same group that sent out the revengers.

Taliesin

[theolein]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It shouldn't. It's wrong to support terrorism even if they're on your side.

That might be the case, but tell that to Ronald Reagan (The Contras), Nationalist Irish catholics in the USA (The IRA), Angry young Muslim men (Al Qaida), Opressed black people in South Africa (The ANC), militant young Basques (ETA) etc.

And the whole thing just becomes a circus anyway, because there are people that will accuse states of being terrorist states such as the Palestinains (Israel), the USA (North Korea, Iraq, iran etc etc).

So, in reality, like the guy in Matrix Revolutions said, it's just a word. What's behind the word is more often than not a subjective view based on who you do or don't support.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Freedom fighters are those that fight only military targets, like the PLO and Hamas in the occupied areas.

Freedom fighters become terrorists when they seek revenge for killed civilians of their own people and cross the occupation-area-border to the homeland of the occupier and kill civilians of the occupier's people as retaliation, like the suicide-bombers of Hamas.

When that happens all freedom fighters are called terrorists, as they are members of the same group that sent out the revengers.

Taliesin

Gee, didn't realize the world was defined in terms of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

I think the two sides debating this definition are coming at it from different angles. Sure, in theory the attitude toward innocents/noncombatants sounds like a good differentiating point, but in real use the term is generally applied depending on your perspective. For example, if Saddam Hussein claimed that all the Iraqis he killed were terrorists or supporters of terror, what would you say to that? Yet other countries are daily fighting battles against insurgents, calling them terrorists, and few people here question it.

[Joshua]

Presumably, a "freedom" fighter has as his goal freedom and the rights associated with freedom. A terrorist seeks to circumvent and suppress those rights through the use of indiscriminate murder and destruction, based on an extreme ideology.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Freedom fighter is trying to get rid of an illegitimate government by attacking only that government's agents/military/targets.

Terrorist is trying to get rid of a legitimate government by attacking mostly civilians.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It shouldn't. It's wrong to support terrorism even if they're on your side.

So, the US supporting Bin Laden when he was a terrorist against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was wrong? Or was he a freedom fighter back then ...?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Freedom fighter is trying to get rid of an illegitimate government by attacking only that government's agents/military/targets.

Terrorist is trying to get rid of a legitimate government by attacking mostly civilians.

How does one define "legitimate" and "illegitimate"?

[BigMeatyChunks]

Legitimate = approved by the people (voted on or established for a certain length of time...any government which has majority support among the people).

Illegitimate = government powers assumed by force (i.e. revolution, coup)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, the US supporting Bin Laden when he was a terrorist against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was wrong? Or was he a freedom fighter back then ...?

I'm not aware of the US having supported bin Laden, but if we're talking about the Afghan Mujahedeen, then it depends on their actions. If they specifically targeted Soviet civilians, then yes, that would be terrorism. I don't know if they did that - my understanding is that they did not. They attacked the Soviet military that had come in and occupied their country.

It's not really that hard to make a decision on this.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Legitimate = approved by the people (voted on or established for a certain length of time...any government which has majority support among the people).

Illegitimate = government powers assumed by force (i.e. revolution, coup)

What if you have a government approved by one group of people that is oppressing another group of people? In other words, what happens when a democratic nation acts oppressively under the mandate of its electorate against a group of people who have no say in that government?

[PacHead]

Islamic terrorists cannot be considered freedom fighters, because "freedom" is a concept that is alien to them.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:

snippy

My references to freedom fighter/terrorist only have domestic connotations.

Freedom fighters would fight to restore a previous elected or approved government; terrorists would fight to destroy that same elected or approved government and replace it with their own design.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Islamic terrorists cannot be considered freedom fighters, because "freedom" is a concept that is alien to them.

Is that what your government and media has told you to think?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
My references to freedom fighter/terrorist only have domestic connotations.

Freedom fighters would fight to restore a previous elected or approved government; terrorists would fight to destroy that same elected or approved government and replace it with their own design.

Then, domesticly, I am inclined to agree with your definitions. But, I think things become less clear when the issue is international. For example; the Palestine/Israel issue. One could argue that the Palestinians are trying to restore their nation to a Palestinian approved government while Israel is trying to implement one of their own design. From this perspective, the Palestinians are the freedom fighters and Israel is the terrorist.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Then, domesticly, I am inclined to agree with your definitions. But, I think things become less clear when the issue is international. For example; the Palestine/Israel issue. One could argue that the Palestinians are trying to restore their nation to a Palestinian approved government while Israel is trying to implement one of their own design. From this perspective, the Palestinians are the freedom fighters and Israel is the terrorist.

Did Palestine ever have a popularly elected government to begin with?

[theolein]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Did Palestine ever have a popularly elected government to begin with?

I don't believe so, but that doesn't mean they approve of the Israeli government (in which they have no say). Just because they didn't have a democracy doesn't mean they didn't approve of their leadership.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I don't believe so, but that doesn't mean they approve of the Israeli government (in which they have no say). Just because they didn't have a democracy doesn't mean they didn't approve of their leadership.

It appears to me that they never had their own government (given that either the Turks or British ruled what is known as Palestine for some time) so based on my definitions there could not be such a thing as a Palestinian freedom fighter.

Of course, one could use my definitions and claim that the Americans were terrorists in regards to fighting the British to win freedom for the colonies. In that case if there never was a legitimately elected national government and the majority oppose the current government imposed upon them then those fighting against the oppressors would then be freedom fighters (still they cannot attack chiefly civilians otherwise it's terrorism no matter how you split hairs).

Because the Palestinians attack mostly civilians they could never be considered freedom fighters.

[BRussell]

Palestinians have had elections. Arafat was elected. The Palestinian council was elected.

Not sure how that's relevant though - you could have a democratically elected government that engages in or supports terrorism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Because the Palestinians attack mostly civilians they could never be considered freedom fighters.

But, what if they are being oppressed by the civilians?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Then, domesticly, I am inclined to agree with your definitions. But, I think things become less clear when the issue is international. For example; the Palestine/Israel issue. One could argue that the Palestinians are trying to restore their nation to a Palestinian approved government while Israel is trying to implement one of their own design.

To 'restore' something, it had to have existed at some point in time prior. When was that? The Ottoman Turk rule was from 1516-1917. They want to restore back to before 1516?
If that's the case, Israel is restoring back to before the Roman conquering in year 63 AD, only with democracy instead of monarcy. It wasn't until 638 AD that Muslim Arabs captured Jerusalem and took it from the Romans.

You see, the whole notion of 'restoring' falls prey to people using superior knowledge of history to trump each other, and then other folks advise that we forget the whole history and live in the present.

Truly, Millenium defined terrorism correctly. And once an organization uses terrorism under Millenium's definition, the whole organization is a terrorist organization. No one talks about the community service wing of Al-Qaeda, for example.

Many Palestinian organizations proclaim through their media, religious institutions and schools, their wish to kill every Jewish man, woman and child. They seek to accomplish this goal through drive-by shootings, sending mortars into civilian areas, the bombing of school buses, lynchings and suicide bombings in public areas.

The claim that the Hamas leadership is "political" is false. In the Arab world in general, and particularly among radical Islamic groups like Hamas, there is little separation between the religious, political and military divisions. They attempt to justify their terrorist actions by distributing aid to the local populations which house th

A guerilla is an irregular fighting a regular army; terrorists are irregulars fighting civilians.

Palestinian organizations have never accepted a full cease-fire with Israel. They have never ceased shooting at motorists, shelling mortars at Israeli communities or planting anti-personnel bombs on Israeli streets.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Palestinians have had elections. Arafat was elected. The Palestinian council was elected.

Not sure how that's relevant though - you could have a democratically elected government that engages in or supports terrorism.

Is Arafat serving his 9th year in a 5 year term, or what?

.... and people grumble about regime change for the US!

[angaq0k]

Freedom Fighter

insurgent, insurectionist, freedom fighter, rebel -- (a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions))

I don't see any mentions of military targets. Seems like a couple of innocents are likely to be sacrificed...

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
But, what if they are being oppressed by the civilians?

Freedom fighters don't kill civilians, period. That violates the principles they would be fighting for in the first place.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Palestinians have had elections. Arafat was elected. The Palestinian council was elected.

Not sure how that's relevant though - you could have a democratically elected government that engages in or supports terrorism.

So did the Soviet Union and the current Communist China. Putting one candidate on the ballot doesn't constitute fair and democratic elections.

If you gave the Palestinians a fair and free election without threats, etc. I wonder if they really would have chosen Arafat.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Freedom fighters don't kill civilians, period. That violates the principles they would be fighting for in the first place.

Even if necessary for the "greater good"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Freedom fighters don't kill civilians, period. That violates the principles they would be fighting for in the first place.

Yes, well that's convenient, isn't it? An elected government oppresses a people under the mandate of it's electorate; attacking the government does no good since the electorate will only put another one in with the same mandate. But you can't target the real decision makers because that would be "terrorism".

What is the most effective way to fight an oppressive democratic nation?

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Even if necessary for the "greater good"?

When civilians are the primary target then you've lost your moral ground for fighting your fight.

There is no greater good which can justify only attacking civilians.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Yes, well that's convenient, isn't it? An elected government oppresses a people under the mandate of it's electorate; attacking the government does no good since the electorate will only put another one in with the same mandate. But you can't target the real decision makers because that would be "terrorism".

What is the most effective way to fight an oppressive democratic nation?

If there isn't an effective way to get the point across without targeting civilians then perhaps the point isn't worth considering.

If you are insinuating an attack on the U.S. then the only legitimate target is to attack the government. If you slide down the hill of attacking civilians then your cause is lost because the civilians will get angry and be even more resistent to your message or your cause. Why do you think that it's a big mistake for a foreigner/foreign country to attack us? If anything the attacks on the WTC, USS Cole, etc. have made us stronger in our resolve to get rid of fundamentalist terrorists.

Terrorist groups by nature will never be effective in winning because they won't win the hearts of the people. Freedom fighters, on the other hand, will.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
If there isn't an effective way to get the point across without targeting civilians then perhaps the point isn't worth considering.

If you are insinuating an attack on the U.S. then the only legitimate target is to attack the government. If you slide down the hill of attacking civilians then your cause is lost because the civilians will get angry and be even more resistent to your message or your cause. Why do you think that it's a big mistake for a foreigner/foreign country to attack us? If anything the attacks on the WTC, USS Cole, etc. have made us stronger in our resolve to get rid of fundamentalist terrorists.

Terrorist groups by nature will never be effective in winning because they won't win the hearts of the people. Freedom fighters, on the other hand, will.

Now you contradict yourself quite a bit. You say that freedom fighters should attack the government and not civilians, and everyone who attacks civilians is a terrorist. Then you cite the attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, and even if you didn't explicitly mention it the pentagon as examples for a terrorist-attack.

These examples are definetly military targets, the WTC is helping financing the war-machinery of the USA, the pentagon is the planning headquarter of the US-armies, and the USS Cole is a war-ship.

The civilians that died during the attack on the military targets, well those can be called "colletaral damage", like the US-government often does.

Taliesin

[dreilly1]

How about:

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists on the winning side,
and Terrorists are Freedom Fighters on the losing side...

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by eklipse:
'Terrorist' is just the commonly used term for a Muslim freedom fighter.

Given that "Islam" = "submission to Allah" which equals no freedom in the true sense of the word, is it possible for a Muslim to be a "freedom" fighter?