NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading a thread on how Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (I stress the past tense) and I realized many famous and even sometimes celebrated leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were once terrorists, yet they were attempting to acheive something for a cause greater than themselves.

Also, I've been watching recent news and reading a lot of history in preparation for my IB exams, so I was just wondering before I go to sleep now: At what point is a man (or a woman, just to be politically correct ;)) a terrorist or a freedom fighter in promoting their cause? Is the main separating point the killing of civilians? If the cause is just, does the act of killing innocents negate it? Can terrorists be redeemed? Should governments regard terrorists as symptoms of a greater unrest or a plague to be exterminated?

A lot of questions, but I'm rather bored, so here's to opening a discussion. :)

They are freedom fighters if they fight for freedom. They are terrorists if their main objective is to cause terror.

You can fight for freedom by causing terror, so you could be both. Kinda like a freedom terrorist.

Off topic: Yay my 1000th post. :)

Click Stand;13663016']They are freedom fighters if they fight for freedom. They are terrorists if their main objective is to cause terror.

You can fight for freedom by causing terror, so you could be both. Kinda like a freedom terrorist.

Off topic: Yay my 1000th post. :)

So, there's no separation between the two?

a freedom fight is, in my opinion, someone who attempts to free their land from actual occupation, ongoing hostilities, or threat, and does so by targeting government and military targets.

Which, for instance, is why I do not refer to the bombings of the USS Cole as a terrorist act. Right or wrong, the perpitrators of that act believed they were being faced with American military aggression and targeted an american military vessle.

A freedom fighter is someone who fights for a political cause (usually overthrowing a government or similar) and targeting only military forces. A terrorist is someone who does the same, but targets civilians as well.

Also, neither terrorists or freedom fighters can be backed by an international recognised state.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Your enemies consider you the enemy.

I restate my previous statement:

If you use tactics against the government, you are literally a terrorist. Whether others think you are is, well, their opinion.

A great example is George Washington. The Loyalists often referred to him as "Warlord" Washington. He used what was considered at the time to be 'unfair tactics,' he accosted those who stood against him, and great stories of courage are told of how he abused Loyalists he found. Is he a personal hero of mine? Why, yes, he is. Was he a great leader- in both politics and the military -and a powerful diplomat? Yes again. Much of the same can be said about Mandela.

So, there's no separation between the two?

No, they are not mutually exclusive. That is, unless you define the terms differently.

He was both maybe?

He was fighting for what he thought was freedom while using terrorist tactics.

Simple answer no?

Rolling squid;13663027']

Also, neither terrorists or freedom fighters can be backed by an international recognised state.

I'm pretty sure the IRA was backed by Ireland.

if they serve the Us interest they are freedom fighters. if they do not they are terrorist.

if they serve the Us interest they are freedom fighters. if they do not they are terrorist.

From a US gov' point of view obv.

Click Stand;13663034']No, they are not mutually exclusive. That is, unless you define the terms differently.

Not really, but it seems many others do.

I was just reading a thread on how Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (I stress the past tense) and I realized many famous and even sometimes celebrated leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were once terrorists, yet they were attempting to acheive something for a cause greater than themselves.

Also, I've been watching recent news and reading a lot of history in preparation for my IB exams, so I was just wondering before I go to sleep now: At what point is a man (or a woman, just to be politically correct ;)) a terrorist or a freedom fighter in promoting their cause? Is the main separating point the killing of civilians? If the cause is just, does the act of killing innocents negate it? Can terrorists be redeemed? Should governments regard terrorists as symptoms of a greater unrest or a plague to be exterminated?

A lot of questions, but I'm rather bored, so here's to opening a discussion. :)

Yes, the point where a freedom fighter becomes a terrorist is when they strike civilian targets. After that there's no going back, they should either be executed or imprisoned for life.

I was just reading a thread on how Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (I stress the past tense) and I realized many famous and even sometimes celebrated leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were once terrorists, yet they were attempting to acheive something for a cause greater than themselves.

Also, I've been watching recent news and reading a lot of history in preparation for my IB exams, so I was just wondering before I go to sleep now: At what point is a man (or a woman, just to be politically correct ;)) a terrorist or a freedom fighter in promoting their cause? Is the main separating point the killing of civilians? If the cause is just, does the act of killing innocents negate it? Can terrorists be redeemed? Should governments regard terrorists as symptoms of a greater unrest or a plague to be exterminated?

A lot of questions, but I'm rather bored, so here's to opening a discussion. :)

He won, so he was a freedom fighter, if he ls he would be a terrorist. It as simple as that. It merely a point of view which of the two you are. They use the same tactics so they are the same.

I'm pretty sure the IRA was backed by Ireland.

Well the Official (original)I.R.A. were operating before there was an Irish state, that being the point of the exercise.

I'm pretty sure the IRA was backed by Ireland.

They may have been, but in that case, they are no longer terrorists, they become a CIA type of organization.

Rolling squid;13663065']They may have been, but in that case, they are no longer terrorists, they become a CIA type of organization.

Correction

They are a polictical organisation.

=D

A terrorist uses a specific tactic, that of terror. They intentionally target civilians or non-combatant military personnel for the sole purpose of creating an environment of fear, to alter the political situation.

The two definitions are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a set of synonyms.

Regardless, terrorism, even if carried out by genuine freedom fighters is detestable, and forces them into a gray zone, in which their morality and the justness of their cause must be questioned.

that's a good question, there's a lot of grey areas when it comes to being "politically correct"

A terrorist has money and a freedom fighter does not I'd guess

I'm pretty sure the IRA was backed by Ireland.

no! *hits with rolled up newspaper*

Click Stand;13663016']They are freedom fighters if they fight for freedom. They are terrorists if their main objective is to cause terror.

what about if its for imaginary threats like American imperialism or since this thread is going that way the British crown

Click Stand;13663016']Off topic: Yay my 1000th post. :)

noob :p

I was just reading a thread on how Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (I stress the past tense) and I realized many famous and even sometimes celebrated leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were once terrorists, yet they were attempting to acheive something for a cause greater than themselves.

Also, I've been watching recent news and reading a lot of history in preparation for my IB exams, so I was just wondering before I go to sleep now: At what point is a man (or a woman, just to be politically correct ;)) a terrorist or a freedom fighter in promoting their cause? Is the main separating point the killing of civilians? If the cause is just, does the act of killing innocents negate it? Can terrorists be redeemed? Should governments regard terrorists as symptoms of a greater unrest or a plague to be exterminated?

A lot of questions, but I'm rather bored, so here's to opening a discussion. :)

I suppose that terrorist would include the use of fear and intimidation (with the implied usage of such against civilians) so as to force change in political or social establishments. Whereas the term freedom fighter is more likely to refrain from intimidation or instilling fear against civilians so as to force change in oppressive political or social establishments.

Pretty thin difference, though it is notable. Oppressive can be relative, though most people have a pretty good idea what it means. As to civilians, the delineation between active military and not active military (or not part of) that term is not always relevant to a terrorist or freedom fighter cause as they are not always at odds with a military, but more often a social or political entity...which is usually composed of and supported by civilians.

From a US gov' point of view obv.

The Us goverment point of view is the only one that matters in international affairs.

what about if its for imaginary threats like American imperialism or since this thread is going that way the British crown

Well, I wouldn't call a lot of people freedom fighters, since they don't seem to be fighting for freedom from anything. Then again, this is all just perception and point of view, so I can't deny that they are freedom fighters.

noob :p

Old timer...:D

The Us goverment point of view is the only one that matters in international affairs.

No trolling please.

A soldier is a professional in the use of violence operating under the authority of a nation, state, or other political entity.
A civilian is a violence non-professional or ex-professional operating without the authority of a political entity.

"attacking" here means using military level tactics, weapons, or WMDs

Soldiers attacking soldiers: soldiers, warriors, military.
Civilians attacking soldiers are guerrilla warriors, insurgents, or freedom fighters.
Civilians attacking civilians are terrorists.
Soldiers attacking civilians are war criminals, propagating genocide, (genocidalists?).

Although bombing has become a military tactic of choice, this is theorhetically removed from the category of the war criminal to be a military tactic. "Strategic bombing," they call it.

By the way, I made this whole thing up...

freedom fighter
–noun
a fighter for freedom, esp. a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.

ter·ror·ist Audio Help /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-er-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

A freedom fighter is one who fights, literally, for freedom against tyranny or oppression. A terrorist is one who uses terror as a key device in gaining their goals. A terrorist can be a freedom fighter if they are fighting for freedom, but a freedom fighter can also be a terrorist if they are using terror tactics to reach their goals of attaining freedom.

Can they be separated? Yes. An example, if I'm not mistaken, could be Gandhi, who would be classified a freedom fighter, but his lack of terror tactics wouldn't classify him a terrorist.

I was just reading a thread on how Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (I stress the past tense) and I realized many famous and even sometimes celebrated leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were once terrorists, yet they were attempting to acheive something for a cause greater than themselves.

Also, I've been watching recent news and reading a lot of history in preparation for my IB exams, so I was just wondering before I go to sleep now: At what point is a man (or a woman, just to be politically correct ;)) a terrorist or a freedom fighter in promoting their cause? Is the main separating point the killing of civilians? If the cause is just, does the act of killing innocents negate it? Can terrorists be redeemed? Should governments regard terrorists as symptoms of a greater unrest or a plague to be exterminated?

A lot of questions, but I'm rather bored, so here's to opening a discussion. :)


I personally hate Nelson Mandela. I think that he was a terrorist who should've been put away forever for his crimes against the South African Government.

Well the Official (original)I.R.A. were operating before there was an Irish state, that being the point of the exercise.

Ireland's always existed as Ireland. Yes it was under British rule, and large parts still are. But Ireland still is Ireland. =D

After the North/South split.

The south, classed, and accepted as a independent Nation. Continued to back the IRA.

Difference between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists is the degree of sucess.

It's also, for me, that a freedom fighter don't hit civilians purposely.

I personally hate Nelson Mandela. I think that he was a terrorist who should've been put away forever for his crimes against the South African Government.

There is no such thing as a crime against a government. And governments that perpetrate crimes against the people (like South Africa's under Apartheid) have no legitimacy. I laud Mandela's opposition to tyranny.

I personally hate Nelson Mandela. I think that he was a terrorist who should've been put away forever for his crimes against the South African Government.

An Apartheid South African Government.

In my view they're not mutually exclusive. One can be both at the same time... One is about the means, and the other about motivation.

The distinction, as Andaluciae pointed out, is that the terrorists is one who uses terror as a tactic (attacking the civilian populace) while a freedom fighter is motivated by the goal of freeing himself from occupation / oppression etc.

The south, classed, and accepted as a independent Nation. Continued to back the IRA.

I seem to remember differently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War)

There is no such thing as a crime against a government.

thats a rather blanket statement, surely you could for instance say blowing up parliament is at least vandalism of public property?

An Apartheid South African Government.

which is still against the law and I'd say wrong

since some of y'all are more into these things that i am...

what terrorist acts did nelson mandela participate in?

which is still against the law and I'd say wrong

You do have a point. I concede on that.

The debate between freedom fighter and terrorist depends on where you sit, obviously. The more neutral term to use is "militants", or "insurgents".

I think a Martin Luther King Jr. quote is very usesful here: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it is demanded by the oppressed."

A less polite way to say the same thing is "Positive social change is never achieved voluntarily."

The category "Terrorist" is extremely self-serving (for power). Invoking the specter of terrorism serves to demonize resistors, and that is the only real purpose of the category. It is convenient for those in power, because the more extreme the injustices that exist within a society, the more force (or "terror") is required to rectify those injustices. Of course, what the powerful do is never terrorism, and what the resisters do is always terrorism.

EDIT: How in the hell can you hate Mendela?

thats a rather blanket statement, surely you could for instance say blowing up parliament is at least vandalism of public property?

Vandalizing public property is a crime against the citizens, not the government.

An Apartheid South African Government.

Well it worked. South Africa was better off. But I'm biased, I had family there.

Well it worked. South Africa was better off. But I'm biased, I had family there.

You mean it worked for your family. If everyone was fine with it, the government obviously would not have been resisted so strongly and overthrown.


As for Freedom Fighters and Terrorists, you can be both, if you're fighting against a regime while simultaneously attacking civilians purposely. Though if you only attacked the military, or at least only targeted the military, you would be considered a Freedom Fighter(Except by the government you're targeting). If you purposely attack civilians, you're almost always going to be considered terrorists, unless of course you win and manage to change the history books.

Click Stand;13663016']They are freedom fighters if they fight for freedom. They are terrorists if their main objective is to cause terror.

You can fight for freedom by causing terror, so you could be both. Kinda like a freedom terrorist.

Off topic: Yay my 1000th post. :)

It's a valid point you make but it's trying to oversimplify something that's highly impossible to define but it's pretty on point. Freedom fighters do fight for freedom whereas terrorists are only out for terror and bloodshed. However, what happens when the cause for freedom becomes a cause for terror? Then you have a sticky situation.

A terrorist uses a specific tactic, that of terror. They intentionally target civilians or non-combatant military personnel for the sole purpose of creating an environment of fear, to alter the political situation.

The two definitions are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a set of synonyms.

Regardless, terrorism, even if carried out by genuine freedom fighters is detestable, and forces them into a gray zone, in which their morality and the justness of their cause must be questioned.

I agree with your definitions.

The bombing of civilians during war is also a terrorist act. One can think of Guernica, the Blitz, China, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. All deeply immoral acts.

A terrorist uses a specific tactic, that of terror. They intentionally target civilians or non-combatant military personnel for the sole purpose of creating an environment of fear, to alter the political situation.

The two definitions are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a set of synonyms.

Regardless, terrorism, even if carried out by genuine freedom fighters is detestable, and forces them into a gray zone, in which their morality and the justness of their cause must be questioned.
Wait. What's so bad about the US Department of Defense definition?

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

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is who gets to write the history books (hint: It's the victors). Remember, the only reason the American Revolutionist are not considered traitors and terrorists, is that they beat the British.

Wait. What's so bad about the US Department of Defense definition?

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

That seems to me to be quite close to Andaluciae's definition.

I'm intrigued by what unlawful means in the Defence Department's definition. Clearly the destruction of the World Trade Centre buildings broke US laws. Problem is, I suspect the bombing of Dresden broke German laws. Yes, I know Germany was at war with Britain and Germany but Osama bin Laden was at war against the US, since acknowledged by the West by the coining of the term "War on Terror" (a tactical mistake IMO).

In my view they're not mutually exclusive. One can be both at the same time... One is about the means, and the other about motivation.

The distinction, as Andaluciae pointed out, is that the terrorists is one who uses terror as a tactic (attacking the civilian populace) while a freedom fighter is motivated by the goal of freeing himself from occupation / oppression etc.

And if the freedom fighter is smart, he will force the government to commit acts of terror on the populace... Population denial, gain legitimacy in the world's view, and increase his base of support in the locals.

Anyone here read the War of the Flea?

That seems to me to be quite close to Andaluciae's definition.

Maybe, but different enough that I dispute it. Basically, what I'm asserting is that what is considered terrorism need not target the civilian population nor be charactered by the intent to cause "terror." My point is that people understand terrorism to be the threat or use of violence to make governments do stuff.


I'm intrigued by what unlawful means in the Defence Department's definition. Clearly the destruction of the World Trade Centre buildings broke US laws. Problem is, I suspect the bombing of Dresden broke German laws.

That is one real worry. My problem with the whole terrorism discourse is that the definitions are loaded and self-serving. Having the word "unlawful" means that the State can never commit the crime of terrorism by definition (unless we're talking about violating some other nation's laws or a "higher" law.)

That means that we characterize violent action differently: if the State does it, it's okay; if anybody else does it, it's terrorism.

Terrorism is also a huge boogey-man. Everyone thinks terrorism is evil, so if you can paint people as terrorists, you can do whatever you want to them.

It also is very value-laden and presumes the illegitimacy of forcible resistance to the State.

I am of the belief that the category "terrorist" serves to dehumanize those who struggle against cruelty and oppression and to facilitate their merciless slaughter by the rulers with the cheerleading of the general population.

Yes, the point where a freedom fighter becomes a terrorist is when they strike civilian targets. After that there's no going back, they should either be executed or imprisoned for life.What exactly is a "civilian target"? What if it is in fact the civilians who cause misery to another group and that group fights back?

I notice there's a distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. However, to what extent does a freedom fighter have to be a terrorist to get what they want?

It seems pretty much every freedom fighter I can think of has been involved in such activities. Only Ghandi stands out, and I think it's quite known that other groups were active in India, so the British withdrawal wasn't simply because of his non-violent campaign. Besides, he technically did break British laws, although they weren't ones to due with violence against civilians or the state.

I notice there's a distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. However, to what extent does a freedom fighter have to be a terrorist to get what they want?

It seems pretty much every freedom fighter I can think of has been involved in such activities. Only Ghandi stands out, and I think it's quite known that other groups were active in India, so the British withdrawal wasn't simply because of his non-violent campaign. Besides, he technically did break British laws, although they weren't ones to due with violence against civilians or the state.

I've often wondered how much more effective the Palestinians would be if they followed Gandhi's lead in non-violent protest.

I've often wondered how much more effective the Palestinians would be if they followed Gandhi's lead in non-violent protest.

Or how much more effective Al Queda would have been if they had destroyed the twin towers when they were mostly empty.

I've often wondered how much more effective the Palestinians would be if they followed Gandhi's lead in non-violent protest.

A lot of people probably would have never heard of the movement. They barely get media coverage outside the Middle East unless they do something crazy like blowing up civilians, unfortunately.

I notice there's a distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. However, to what extent does a freedom fighter have to be a terrorist to get what they want?

It seems pretty much every freedom fighter I can think of has been involved in such activities. Only Ghandi stands out, and I think it's quite known that other groups were active in India, so the British withdrawal wasn't simply because of his non-violent campaign. Besides, he technically did break British laws, although they weren't ones to due with violence against civilians or the state.So will the Jews leave the West Bank once Palestinian Arabs start sit-ins and hunger strike? We all know they will not. And that is why every settler deserves to be attacked for what he does to others. And the settlers are not civilian targets but part of an occupational force.

So will the Jews leave the West Bank once Palestinian Arabs start sit-ins and hunger strike? We all know they will not. And that is why every settler deserves to be attacked for what he does to others. And the settlers are not civilian targets but part of an occupational force.

Erm, that's not what I said or was talking about, but um... yeah, whatever you like.

... to what extent does a freedom fighter have to be a terrorist to get what they want?....That depends on the purpose of the fight and on who he fights against. Against settlers in your home land every violence is justified.

Ireland's always existed as Ireland. Yes it was under British rule, and large parts still are. But Ireland still is Ireland. =D

After the North/South split.

The south, classed, and accepted as a independent Nation. Continued to back the IRA.


It was politically treated as a province of Britain. Thus they were a non-state actor. America refused to meet the Irish delegation in 1919 for instance, post WW1. The South didn't officially or unofficially support the Provisional movement - only toying with the idea in the very early 70's.

"large parts" aren't, btw. Only 6 counties of the 32. A map is your friend.

Anyhoo, the term "terrorist" is debased in common usage, as its used as a slur by one side against the other.


I've often wondered how much more effective the Palestinians would be if they followed Gandhi's lead in non-violent protest..

There are regularily peaceful protests in the OT. You can gauge their success by the number of times you've heard of them.

Gandhis method worked for a number of factors, including distance, convincing indians not to co-operate with the British administration, the financial state of Britain after the war and a disillusion with the idea of Empire within Britain itself.

I realized many famous and even sometimes celebrated leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were once terrorists, yet they were attempting to acheive something for a cause greater than themselves.
Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon backed terrorism until their death / undeath respectively. Attempting to achieve something for a cause greater than yourself doesn't turn you from being a ne'er do well into a freedom fighter just for the sake of it. At all.

What exactly is a "civilian target"? What if it is in fact the civilians who cause misery to another group and that group fights back?

Which is why I prefer the term "non-combatant". It defines a different group from civilians, and is based primarily on behavior.

Which is why I prefer the term "non-combatant". It defines a different group from civilians, and is based primarily on behavior.

I tend to use the terms interchangeably. Once armed and engaged in any purpose other than strictly the defense of yourself or your loved ones you are not a civilian, you are militia.

As a general rule: If you're white(and a Christian preferably from a wealthier nation) you are a freedom fighter, if not, you are a terrorist.

As a general rule: If you're white(and a Christian preferably from a wealthier nation) you are a freedom fighter, if not, you are a terrorist.
Ah, but I would add that you can be a brown freedom fighter if and only if you are hired and supported by whites from wealthier nations. But the gist, I agree with.