When is a Freedom fighter a terrorist? Subjective crap is ruining our forum~

Moderators move if appro. The sub thing said global issues and I suppose this is a global issue!

Members once again I have pity for those of you that have a short attention span. To skip the long detailed stuff drop down to the last paragraph in blue to see the synopsis.

FORWARD written by John Grission...right lol ;

Considering the problems we here at PF have comminuting (for various reasons), and our passion for ME affairs, I decided to do some research to attempt to gain some clarity as to what is terrorism and the difference (if any) between terrorism and freedom fighters etc. I felt like I already knew the answer but out of respect to the other members even the usual suspects I wanted to determine if my preconceived notion were correct. I have stated my notions many times so I will not do it again here.

What is the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter or guerrilla fighter?

Onward; I don’t think most terrorists see themselves as such. Most would consider terrorist(ism) a near insult and prefer; "holy warriors,“ freedom fighters," "urban guerrillas," even patriots. At PF the usual suspects call those they dislike such as Israelis terrorists, even if acting within the boundaries of their nations laws. I feel a terrorist is anyone or group that ignores any law including international law and that intentionally murders non-combatants and others etc for political gain, sometimes other than political demands are stated.

The ex deputy chief (3) of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are five key elements of terrorism:

1..It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

2...It is designed to change the existing political order.

3...It is not merely criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get extort funds etc.

4...It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

5...It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.

I suppose I can agree with that, even if he is CIA.

Can states be terrorists? I think no or none exist today. I suppose theoretically its possible. However the experts tend to disagree. Here is a cut and paste from one source I used quite a bit because its sources checked out as valid and it seemed mostly neutral and it was written by an expert in the field (4).

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.

Of course seeing that the article I cut from was, or seemed to be a CIA/USA friendly site ie the ‘state dept of the USA’ the terrorist states listed might be a little biased, but I fully agree if states can be said to be terrorist those listed fit the bill.

Lastly there are some differences between a guerrilla fighter and terrorist, at least according to the (biased?)experts. Those that study such things say depending on the target both the title of guerrilla and terrorist fit.

Abstract brief ; All in all the definition of terrorism is subjective if we are speaking in strict technical terms. However, and this is my revised opinion not the experts, in general usage usually the established law abiding nations or individuals are not considered terrorist when committing a crime such as murder extortion etc. I have modified my opinion to include ‘guerrilla fighter’ as someone or a group who attack only military targets law abiding or not, lol. Of course one can be a terrorist and guerrilla fighter. I hope that when using sensationalism etc to embellish a thread or reply which I do often we exercise restraint when using the word ‘terrorism’ or terrorists.

Notes 3&4..sourced from ; http://www.mccsc.edu/~rcourtne/terror_qanda.htm

reva

 

Simple response to your question without reading all of what you have written, obey the governments of the United States and you are a freedom fighter (one who fights against and opposes other people's freedom) as well as a terrorist (definition used is: one who engages in behaviors that cause shock, dismay and desolation to accomplish a political or economic ends or goal).

 

It is a shame. Out of all the countries America has rumbled into in the Middle East and North Africa, and the considerable imbalance created from the subsequent actions, everyone they come up against is either a terrorist or insurgent. Not even people, just animated ideals correlated to hatred, mindlessly opposed to our country. They want you to believe that we are being invited and rooted for by all the citizens in that country.

I don't know what is going on over there, I doubt many people in America do beyond armchair speculation and media surfing...but I know enough common sense to know this is not the case.

 

The difference between being a terrorist or a freedom fighter is in the eye of the beholder. I will use a different example then the mid east as that one gets too much of an emotional response. Lets take the IRA (Irish republican army). To the english and protestant Irish they are clearly terrorists. To the catholic Irish they are mainly viewed as freedom fighters. And lastly using the IRA as an example I think it is clear terrorism works.

 

well, the trouble with the CIA definition is that it pretty much BY DEFINITION makes any sort of revolution or independence movement a terrorist organisation. I think that's a bit much, especially if we're talking about a region in which free speech and elections are unknown. I don't think the French Revolution was a terrorist action, nor was the Russian revolution. Nor the American revolution.

So my quick and dirty

1. The group in question has not exhausted all political solutions
2. There is no existential threat against the group
3. The group targets random civillians not directly connected to the grievence.
4. The group gives no rights to opponents captured in combat.
5. The goals of the group must be primarily political and aimed at a political/social goal.