NationStates Jolt Archive

So many people fling around the insult "terrorist" and then defend with "freedom fighter" or "soldier" that I feel I should clear these up

1) Terrorist: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to create fear and terror by the intentinonal killing of civilians

2) Freedom fighter: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to eliminate MILLITARY targets ONLY that are ocupying/attacking their country of origin

3) Soldier: Anyone who has enlisted into a government organised offical armed force and follows orders to obey and who specificly targets ONLY those who attemt to kill them or who are planning to kill them

So the acusation of American soldiers as terrorists is wrong becuase while they may kill civilians, it was not their intention to do so. Many people think that that doenst make any diffrence but it does. If you are intentionaly going to kill those not involved in the conflict (civilians) then that is terrorism. Palistian suicide bombers can claim to be freedom fighters all they like but they are not if they kill innocents. Only if they exclusively target the millitary will they be true freedom fighters.

nope your wrong. you can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time
Soldier: Someone who fights for an army
Freedom fighter: someone who fights for freedom
Terrorist: Someone who uses the tactics of terror for their aims

well said

nope your wrong. you can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time
Soldier: Someone who fights for an army
Freedom fighter: someone who fights for freedom
Terrorist: Someone who uses the tactics of terror for their aims

I am not wrong. A freedom fighter wants freedom yes? Killing civilians is not going to get him that so he kills millitary. At least then his cause has some honour and purpose instead of just horrific attention grabbing.

nope your wrong. you can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time
Soldier: Someone who fights for an army
Freedom fighter: someone who fights for freedom
Terrorist: Someone who uses the tactics of terror for their aims

you mean like being a part time terrorist?

or maybe you could be a soldier who in his off time is a freedom fighter (going on his own thought up military missions against the invader) and part time terrorist because he also blows up civilians on purpose now and then?

I am not wrong. A freedom fighter wants freedom yes? Killing civilians is not going to get him that so he kills millitary. At least then his cause has some honour and purpose instead of just horrific attention grabbing.

I disagree,

you mean like being a part time terrorist?

or maybe you could be a soldier who in his off time is a freedom fighter (going on his own thought up military missions against the invader) and part time terrorist because he also blows up civilians on purpose now and then?
Well I was consintrating on Freedom fighter/terrorist.

You're getting there, but I dont completely agree on the freedom fighter part.

The U.N. panel's recommended defintion of terrorism is "any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

You're also assuming that war is a game played fairly. You're assuming that it's not military tactic to kill unarmed civilians, even though many people would argue and say that it is.

Many people accuse the American gov't of killing their own civilians for the purpose of economics and warfare.

Well I was consintrating on Freedom fighter/terrorist.

You cannot be both. You are either one or the other. If you infilct fear on the civilian populus by killing them intentionaly then your a terrorist. If you are attempting to gain your freedom by elimintaing millitary personal then you are a freedom fighter. You are not fighting for your freedom by killing civilians are you? They are not they ones opressing you. That is creating terror and thus you are a terrorist.

If your in one contry thats under the power of the other bombs going off in the country controling your contry will make that contry want to negotiate some sort of deal to stop you.

Personally, I wouldn't put it past Bush to allow some terrorists to kill a few more thousand people if it would be an advantage to his political agenda.

But... he still wouldn't be a terrorist because he would never admit to it. A Terrorist brags about his/her doings.

You cannot be both. You are either one or the other. If you infilct fear on the civilian populus by killing them intentionaly then your a terrorist. If you are attempting to gain your freedom by elimintaing millitary personal then you are a freedom fighter. You are not fighting for your freedom by killing civilians are you? They are not they ones opressing you. That is creating terror and thus you are a terrorist.

If only it were that simple, and most of the time it depends on the outcome of the conflict.

If your in one contry thats under the power of the other bombs going off in the country controling your contry will make that contry want to negotiate some sort of deal to stop you.

Actually what is far more likely is that said bombs will make the occupying forces angry and force a crack down on millitants and involve the killing of more and more people too get rid of them. Terrorists do not gain any legitamacy for themselves by bombing people.

If you want a non-biased opinion on Terrorism and that such, you have to abandon all morals and look at it from a tactical point of view. Which is more effective at forcing change - An Iraqi Insurgent blowing an American Soldier's Brains out (Peter Jennings: "Today, 8 Soldiers died when fighting broke out in Fallujah") or when they kidnap civilians and beheading them?

Both definitions are wrong - we, america, use terror as a large part of our tactical maneuvers. Call it shock and awe, but if it's running for your goddamn life from the artillery, these people aren't shocked and in awe. They're scared shitless.

Terrorism is an idea, and as such is not clearly defined in the sense of the word, much like any idea. A Soldier is a Militant, although generaly it is used for organized armies.

Freedom Fighter is a term with no official meaning, as who's freedom you could be fighting for could be another man's condemnation. They call themselves Freedom Fighters, we call them Insurgents. Do you think they go - "Yeah, they're fighting for Democracy."

No.

1) Terrorist: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to create fear and terror by the intentinonal killing of civilians

2) Freedom fighter: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to eliminate MILLITARY targets ONLY that are ocupying/attacking their country of origin

3) Soldier: Anyone who has enlisted into a government organised offical armed force and follows orders to obey and who specificly targets ONLY those who attemt to kill them or who are planning to kill them


My definitions:

Terrorist: Anyone I deem to be a primary target in a gunfight.

Freedom Fighter: Anyone I deem to be a secondary target in a gunfight.

Soldier: Me, and anyone on my side of the gunfight.

Oh well, havent heard of a country called Ireland have you??
You see once opon a time there was an orginiseation called the IRA....
Freedom fighters: yes
terrorists: Hell yeah

Oh well, havent heard of a country called Ireland have you??
You see once opon a time there was an orginiseation called the IRA....
Freedom fighters: yes
terrorists: Hell yeah

IRA: Targeted both civilians and millitary in its time. Result = Terrorist. Seriously anyone who sets out with the intention of killing civilians to enstil fear is a terrorist. You may want freedom but that is not how to get it as the civilians are not the ones opressing you.

There is never a justification for intentionally killing a civilian in a conflict.

So many people fling around the insult "terrorist" and then defend with "freedom fighter" or "soldier" that I feel I should clear these up

1) Terrorist: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to create fear and terror by the intentinonal killing of civilians

2) Freedom fighter: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to eliminate MILLITARY targets ONLY that are ocupying/attacking their country of origin

3) Soldier: Anyone who has enlisted into a government organised offical armed force and follows orders to obey and who specificly targets ONLY those who attemt to kill them or who are planning to kill them

So the acusation of American soldiers as terrorists is wrong becuase while they may kill civilians, it was not their intention to do so. Many people think that that doenst make any diffrence but it does. If you are intentionaly going to kill those not involved in the conflict (civilians) then that is terrorism. Palistian suicide bombers can claim to be freedom fighters all they like but they are not if they kill innocents. Only if they exclusively target the millitary will they be true freedom fighters.

1) Terrorist: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to create fear and terror in order to further their goals. Killing Civilians is a side effect.

2) Freedom fighter: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to kill people that are ocupying/attacking their country of origin. Usually kill military targets only but just like soldiers may harm a civilian.

3) Soldier: Anyone who has enlisted into a government organised offical armed force and who specificly targets ONLY those they are ordered to kill. Sometimes kill civilians when given loose orders, shoot before asking questions, or are unable to understand civilians.

If I used your definations that would make the soldier that was shown on videotape shooting a prisoner would make the soldier become as a terrorist or a freedom fighter and not a soldier.

Ok, I think everyonen needs to realize that there is no Good or Evil, it's all Perspective.

Nobody calls themselves evil. They always think they are right. You would not fight if you thought what you were doing was evil unless there was some ulterior motive to make you fight, such as a held family.

I told you
Freedom fighter= Someone fighting for freedom

Dictionary:
freedom fighter
n.

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

freedom fighter

n : a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel]

1) Terrorist: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to create fear and terror in order to further their goals. Killing Civilians is a side effect.


How exactly would they instill terror without killing people? Eventually they would work out that no one dies. Killing civilians is an intention of terrorists. Are you saying that a side effect of the Washington snipers actions was that people were killed? Or was that the intention?

n : a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel]

Precisely "against the constituted authority" and how do civilians fall under that banner.

Oooops. I was led to believe that everyone who wasn't with us was a terrorist.

So the acusation of American soldiers as terrorists is wrong becuase while they may kill civilians, it was not their intention to do so. Many people think that that doenst make any diffrence but it does. If you are intentionaly going to kill those not involved in the conflict (civilians) then that is terrorism.
Americans think dead civilians are an acceptabel risk.(collatoral damage)
So the accusation that the US troops are terrorists is valid. Only difference is that they are not organised in selfsustaining cells.

Precisely "against the constituted authority" and how do civilians fall under that banner.
They are two seperate things but just because you are one doesnt mean you're not the other.

Americans think dead civilians are an acceptabel risk.(collatoral damage)
So the accusation that the US troops are terrorists is valid. Only difference is that they are not organised in selfsustaining cells.

Collatoral damage is unintended. American troops do not intend for civilians to die as a result of what they are doing. However, terrorists do their best to blur the line between civilians and terrorists that it is more the terrorists to blame than the Americans.

Collatoral damage is unintended. American troops do not intend for civilians to die as a result of what they are doing. However, terrorists do their best to blur the line between civilians and terrorists that it is more the terrorists to blame than the Americans.
Since the terrorists in Iraq were non existend untill the Americans goos stepped in the blame falls on the Americans and their actions. Like shooting up marriages for example.

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

societies OR GOVERNMENTS!

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

societies OR GOVERNMENTS!
Sounds like the US.

Since the terrorists in Iraq were non existend untill the Americans goos stepped in the blame falls on the Americans and their actions. Like shooting up marriages for example.

The Americans and British came to liberate a nation from an opressive regieme (granted they lied about WMD but for the moment that is neither here nor there) and these people wanted to keep said opressive regieme that was into gassing Kurds and the like so they go around killing people. Granted many of the Iraqies are freedom fighters as they only seem to be targeting the Americans and the British but some are terrorists, killing Iraq policeman etc. Saying that the Americans created the terrorists does not vindicate the terrorists.

The Americans and British came to liberate a nation from an opressive regieme (granted they lied about WMD but for the moment that is neither here nor there) and these people wanted to keep said opressive regieme that was into gassing Kurds and the like so they go around killing people.
Now thats just complete and utter bull. If it was because Saddam used gas on Kurds the British and their masters came about a 20 years to late. They didn't went in with the intent to remove Saddam because he was such a naugthy dictator. Thats just another American lie. It was for alleged WMD's.

Granted many of the Iraqies are freedom fighters as they only seem to be targeting the Americans and the British but some are terrorists, killing Iraq policeman etc.
So the resistance figters in WW2 who also targeted their own people who collaborated with the Germans or Japanese are now terrorists?

Saying that the Americans created the terrorists does not vindicate the terrorists.
No. But it doesn't make it any less true.

1) Terrorist: Anyone who sets out with a specific intention to create fear and terror by the intentinonal killing of civilians
Under this definition Sir Arthur Harris (Bomber Harris) who was in Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command for Britain in WWII was a terrorist as he ordered the bombings of German cities after it was no longer militarily needed in order in his opinion to shorten the war by destroying the moral of the German people through mass bombing and incendiary bombing of civilian population centres.

Short biography (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/harris_sir_arthur_bomber.shtml)

Von whatever your name is

Give me a link or Source to that incident with the Marriage you so love to bring up.

The two nuclear bombs on japan! terrorist attacks carried out by soldiers.

Theres probably a few people here who have been in a place of conflict. I live in the 6 counties of the so called 'Northern Ireland'. As a supporter of the armed conflict here by the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA/INLA I see them as freedom fighters of Ireland. I do not see them as soldiers, they are Volunteers as the official name of the IRA is Ogliagh Na hEireann(Irish Volunteers or Volunteers of Ireland). However the British government views them as 'Terrorists', even though on many occassions the PIRA has said sorry for any involvement in civilian casulties and has also admitted that they have made mistakes and civilains have died. I see the British Army personnel as soldiers as they do it for a living and just dont fight for one cause or one goal, they fight everywhere for their government as does the American Army.

Peoples must realise it all depends on were your stand on the conflict is. For example, 9/11 (extreme)Muslims would see this as a victory to break away from the yoke of the 'West" and as "Freedom Fighters". The US would see them as terrorists, which they are. People in between would see it as a dispicable act but with some grounds to justify armed action but not towards civilian targets.

Freedom Fighter: Anyone who fights for liberation and has an ACTUAL cause not just for money or greed.
Soldier:Actual full time soldiers like American and English forces.
Terrorist: People who kill because they want to have more power and have no real cause to fight.

The two nuclear bombs on japan! terrorist attacks carried out by soldiers.


Hiroshima
Major Industrial Center


Nagasaki
Naval Yard

Considering how Strategic bombing was conducted by either side in that war, this was not out of hand


And your stirring up another Hornets nest with that.

Von whatever your name is

Give me a link or Source to that incident with the Marriage you so love to bring up.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5572
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html

Here you go whatever your name is.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5572
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html

Here you go whatever your name is.



A couple key paragraphs in the Guardian Article there

"The killings, if proven, are certain to damage even further the US military's battered reputation in Iraq. Already the US is reeling from its much-criticised operations in Falluja last month which claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives and now the scandal of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison."


Oh and it happened at 3am?

They were firing Gunfire into the Air at 3am?


could have been a lot of confusion there.

"The killings, if proven.
Like the truth will ever come out as long as the US has something to say about it.

Like the truth will ever come out as long as the US has something to say about it.



Possibly, but how can you KNOW, You and I interpet different ways

I see it as a Fuck up or a miscommunication. The units that checked up and the Helicopter might not have known each other was there. The Chopper could have been on patroll, seen a lot of Gunfire in the air some may have actually hit it(doing little harm) and the pilot overreacted. Any of this could have happened.

Hiroshima
Major Industrial Center

Nagasaki
Naval Yard

Considering how Strategic bombing was conducted by either side in that war, this was not out of hand

And your stirring up another Hornets nest with that.
Both military targets, however the main reasons for the bombing were to end the war quickly, to avoid the USSR launching an invasion and to demonstrate to the USSR that the US had the bomb and try to intimidate them in the run up to the cold war.
"Strategic bombing" aka bombing innocent civilians was indeed carried out by all participents but that does not justify it. It also fits the definition of terroism that has been proposed by some posters.

I read some of the posts that have been up here and seen many intresting and good points. One thing I feel is lacking, which I intend to add, is a general, non-text or goverment defined definiton of terroism, freedom fighter, cilvian, and soldier:

1. Terroist: Any person whom, willingly and intentonally targets weak, and or non military targets and attacks with exsessive force (more than an ordinary criminal) assoicated with a goverment or specific orginization or country for the purpose of attention (so the 44 minutes bank hold up was criminal act, however heaivly armed they were), or action from specific orginization (preferably goverment).

2. Freedom Fighter: Any persons whom, willignly bands up or acts as part of an orginization to fight against an occupying force, which, has come as part of a goverment or forgien country. These persons also, due to their inferior force, will comonly use guierilla tactics, including sabatoge, terror as a means of control over tossup regions or aqusiton of wealth. However these persons often will uphold civilan life, in that they are supported by the majority of the local populace and may even fight in open armed resitance agianst a standing army of the occupation force.

3. Civilian: Any person who has residence in an area of combat, and is an unarmed non-combatant, and not affilated with either group through means of espionage, supply, or aiding of either force.

4. Soldier: Any person whom has willignly enlisted themselves into the service of a goverment or orginization and will follow orders and excuete orders without negoitation or argurement (within reason, the fuel truck drivers had reason to question their orders) regardless of religious or moral belifes, and whom is paid a salary either barter or a monetary system for their services (Mercs (mecrnaries) are paid for their services but can disband, or flee, they work for money not orginizations, and concripts are persons forced into service unwillingly).


Yes I know those are long winded dictonary like defintions, but I assure you, as to my knowledge, that they are entirley my own. That is my opinion on those persons, I think that since I'm not responsible for things as goverments are that they are more inclusive and specific as to which thing a person is, and unbyast towards the US, or Iraqi people.
One last thing before I shut up and let you tear this apart, sometimes you must "...walk a mile in their shoes..." (To Kill a Mocking Bird) before you pass sentence. Think if someone as we (USA) saw, unfairly, occupied us would you rise up in armed resistance? (Heck yes, as history demonstrates in 1777, the American Revolution)

Think if someone as we (USA) saw, unfairly, occupied us would you rise up in armed resistance? (Heck yes, as history demonstrates in 1777, the American Revolution)
Tiny point, but the US wasn't occupied by Britain as the US didn't exist yet. It was a revolution - the armed overthrough of the previously legitimate government. Otherwise I like your definitions.

Terror is a tool.
Freedom is a goal.

To that end, those who use terror to further their aims of freedom are both freedom fighters and terrorists.
There is no mutual exclusivity.
This is simple logic.

Terrorists is what big armies call the small armies.

The three definitions can confuse themselves. A freedom fighter can be a soldier: Many americans in the american independence war were fighting for their freedom, but were also (or became) professional soldiers. (maybe this example isnt correct, but one can find many)

A Terrorist can be a soldier. Hell, the Japs that made the nanking massacre, they were enlisted, battle hardened soldiers. And they used terror to keep the chinese civilian populations in line.

A terrorist can be a freedom fighter. French maquis had no problems attacking collaborators to the nazi invaders, yet, they were fighting to free france.