One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

[NedimNapoleon]

I've heard this alot. So I decided to post it here for discussion after the Libya thread got closed...since it had a lot of "Terrorist huger/lover/hater/supporter" naming.

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

I would like that we dont get stuck just on lets say Al Qaeda, but that we peer into the depths of "terrorism" and also look at organizations such as the FARC, Kurdistan Workers Party, IRA, ETA.....

The list of designated terrorist organizations , this list composes of organizations that major "powers" see as terrorist. You may notice that some nations consider certain organizations as terrorist while others dont. They label certain organizations as terrorist according to their own interests, not according to acts of the said organization. In the 80's the Mujaheddin were seen more as freedom fighters (in the west) expelling soviet rule and liberating Afghanistan. This view has shifted by now as relations with the organization and US worsened and led to war and them being labeled as terrorists.

What I would like to see you debate about is when does a movement cross the line from freedom fighter to terrorist and if there is even such a "line"

 

[Borachio]

Isn't it about whether you judge the cause as just?

 

[bhsup]

I'm just gonna paste my post on this from about 6.75 years ago, which was a repost of one I did in afterdark on Mozillazine 2 years before that. Saves me a lot of typing...
NOTE: Political realities have altered the status of some of my answer due to the age of the post, please keep that in mind (hamas being elected, for example)

Well, as your friendly neighborhood answer man, I am here to come to the rescue and will answer that question. The short answer is that it depends on the tactics involved, but that is a very limiting answer and doesn't really cover a lot of situations. I think the easiest way to do it is with a series of scenarios.

Scenario 1: Rebellion/Civil War
Rebellion against the lawful governing authority of a nation is not terrorism in and of itself. It is, however, a very interesting situation because the only thing that makes it legitimate is victory. Example - If the British had summarily stomped the holy living snot out of the colonies, then the leaders of the rebellion would all have most likely been hanged as traitors and the rebellion may not have been more than a footnote in the history of the British Empire. However, the colonies won and The British recognized the legitimacy of the new nation via The Treaty of Paris.

Now to apply this scenario to one of <interested individual> queries in which he asked "Are the Chechenians terrorists?". Those that are fighting the Russian soldiers and limiting their actions to those against soldiers or against infrastructure such as railroads aiding the soldiers movements I would say no, they are not terrorists. However, bombings in Moscow at movie theaters and the like..yes, that is a terrorist act.

It doesn't just apply to those fighting "against the system" either. It could be argued quite successfully that Sherman's march to the sea during the American Civil War was loaded with terrorist acts.

Scenario 2: Resistance/Guerilla fighters
This involves citizens of a conquered nation resisting the occupiers. Again, in and of itself this is not terrorism. But it depends entirely upon the tactics involved.

I'll tackle both sides of the issue with Iraq. Those Iraqis (and even maybe non-Iraqis) who are solely fighting against the military of the US or again against things like railroads, I would not call terrorists but rather resistance fighters. Those that are committing the bombings at hotels, the UN headquarters, etc are terrorists.

Now one may think that the Palestinian groups like Hamas should fall under this catagory, but they don't. The Palestinians have a legally recognized authority (the Palestinian Authority) which Hamas does not represent. They would fall under scenario 3.

Scenario 3: Acts of Violence commited by non-nation states.
This is where the vast majority of terrorism comes into play. Only Nations have the legal right to wage war except when covered by scenarios 1 and 2 above. Let's look at Al-quaeda. They are not a national army and they do not represent any nation. Let's take the bombing of the USS Cole as an example. It was taking on fuel in a Yemeni port when Al-quaeda blew a hole in its side. The US was at war with no nation at this time, and yet this group chose to commit an act of war where they have no authority to commit such acts, therefore it was a terrorist act. Even sadder, their targets are frequently not military but civilian with no direct link to military operations.

As stated before, this is where Hamas falls. The Palestinian Authority does not sanction their actions so they have no legal basis to carry out attacks against even Israeli soldiers. Now, if the Palestinian Authority decided war was the way to go and started official armed resistance against Israel, then attacks against soldiers and the like would fall under scenario 1. But, nothing can possibly justify blowing up a busload of schoolchildren even if a soldier happens to be riding the bus. Those types of acts are terrorism any way you slice it.

 

[del62]

Isn't it about whether you judge the cause as just?

Or is it about methods used?

 

[Borachio]

Yes. Both. And I would favour non-violent methods in all cases. But this would make me not a terrorist under any circumstances. At least I think so. Could I ever terrorize anybody non-violently? Psychologically, perhaps?

 

[Crezth]

If firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?

 

[Borachio]

Nonono. Don't tell me. I know this one. Is it.....oppression?

 

[BvBPL]

That idiom is valid quite a lot in my opinion. Maybe not universally, but quite a bit.

 

[Joecoolyo]

If firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?

Love it!

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[GoodGame]

Isn't it about whether you judge the cause as just?

This is part of the truth, but an individuals choice of targeting and regularity plays a role.
Many respected rebellions have maintained uniforms, military discipline, and avoided targeting civilians. Many terrorists deliberately seek to promote terror through attacking civilians.

 

[Berzerker]

both groups are at war with "the establishment", terrorists pressure it by including civilians on the target list largely for effect

Reagan called his beloved Contras freedom fighters, they'd probably be terrorists by my "standards"

 

[civver_764]

I don't think terrorism is a meaningful concept. As it is, the biggest acts of terrorism are carried out by states.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Terrorism is specifically the use of terror as a weapon. I was going to use a more nuanced answer but this is the simplest one.

 

[King Kalmah]

If firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?

how juvenile can one get....and no cops don't just fight crime they can harass the hell out of you if they have "probably cause" ie being a minority...

EDIT...

what about the people who fought the Soviets???

1956 Hungarian Revolution...ohh wait they were fighting the Soviet's "Freedom"....

 

[Crezth]

how juvenile can one get....

I know you are but what am I?

 

[King Kalmah]

I have nothing to be ashamed of...I know the difference...

 

[Ailedhoo]

The Oxford Dictionary defines terrorism as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" but this definition could be used to describe rebellions against offical authoriterian goverments that commence massive oppression. It is crud in its definition and not separate simple arms groups from groups that commit acts of terror.

Another and personally better definition is that a act of terrorism is a deliberate attack against civilians as a part of a aim. A state of fear and submission is a consideration as a tactic from commencing attacks against civilian targets. There can be challanges to this definition but personally is a better definition then "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" since that would include rebellions that go against the authority of a goverment, as well as the definitions of the term "violence" in need of consideration when it comes to definitions.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

To me, it's terrorism when you target civilians as opposed to military personnel or assets.

Random civilians and non-executive civil servants are not anyone's enemy, occupying force, or fascist overlord. Targeting them defeats the purpose of overthrowing one's enemy, by making everyone on Earth your enemy.

Targeting military assets, personnel, or let's say, a presidential palace, in war, seems to be fair game to me. Those are the people responsible for raising arms against you, removing your rights, or killing you in general.

Police who use deadly force against peaceful protesters will be considered military targets for this purpose.

 

[Dachs]

Police who use deadly force against peaceful protesters will be considered military targets for this purpose.

What about paramilitary groups? Lone resistors? People who shelter and otherwise aid either regular military targets or some sort of irregular force?