There was some discussion on another thread as to the distinction, if any, between being a "terrorist" and being a "freedom fighter". I though the topic deserved a thread of it's own.

Let's take the case of Nelson Mandela. Imprisoned for twenty-sex years by the South African apartheid regime, he was finally released when the anti-apartheid movement could no longer be ignored. He later became the first black president of South Africa. And he's on the Department of Homeland Security's terrorist watch list.

Or let's consider Nat Turner, a slave who led an uprising in Virginia in 1831. He killed (some would say "murdered") 57 people before he was captured and executed. Was he a terrorist? Or was he justified in his actions?

 

He has been made an honorary Canadian!

 

I swear my grandson is a terrorist.....but I am sure he would say he is a freedom fighter if he was old enough to talk.....

 

Yes...but he was charged with treason in his own country.

 

I'm pretty sure if the word terrorist had been coined at the time, Americans during the American Revolution would've been called terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective. Yes?

 

And of course, we cannot forget the founding fathers of America...who started a rebellion in the American colonies because....they felt they were being taxed too much by the British Crown.

 

You beat me to it. But yes, it is.

 

Just saying he is respected for what he did by Canada. He is truly one of the great people of our time!

 

I agree completely. And that, of course, was my point.

 

Americans calling anybody terrorists is just a little misleading if not a bit hypocritical. We're the tyrannical "Britain" of old, and they are the "American Colonies" of the colonial period. We can't honestly judge anybody by calling them a terrorist if they are trying to make their world better without having to rely on us breathing down their necks all the time. That might change a bit if they're out destroying somebody's life. An example of such terrorism, either us or them, Tyrannical or Terrorism.

Nelson M.? Freedom fighter.

 

Terrorism is a *means*, not an end. If the purpose of an act is to terrorise people into submission, it is a terrorist act.

Freedom fighters have an *end*, which is to obtain their freedom. If their chosen method is to terrorise their oppressors into granting freedom, then they are terrorists as well.

Not all terrorist attacks are automatically evil. I doubt many people on this board would claim the bombing of Hiroshima was evil - but nobody can possibly dispute that its sole purpose was to terrorise the Japanese authorities into giving up the war - and it worked.

 

I will go with this definition. A terrorist has a different motivation than a freedom fighter. Lets take the PA/Israel conflict as an example. The Palestinian who is only fighting for an autonomous state, free of Israeli interference, such a person could be considered a freedom fighter, depending on the tactics they employed. However, the Palestinian who seeks to kill all the jews (genocide) I would consider a terrorist. An independent state is something I can support. Genocide I can not and you have no ground to stand on as far as I'm concerned.

You'd be surprised. I don't necessarily agree with the term evil as I don't believe that logically there is any such thing (when used in the traditional context) but I'm sure you could find several members who would agree that it was a very bad thing to do.

-S-

 

Terrorist - a freedom fighter from the perspective of the oppressors.

Freedom Fighter - a hero from the perspective of the ones who he fights for.

Thats why the world is so fucked up by war. Those people who sucide bomb in Iraq arent just trying to kill people, they just want the American oppression out of their lives. Conversely, because those freedom fighters are violently trying to throw the Americans out, the American side would call them terrorists.

 

Actually, so would any neutral who understands words. The methods they're using are intended chiefly to frighten the enemy into submission - ergo, terrorism, whether you support their aims or not.

 

Genocide

There is no distinction, it all stems from your own personal point of view. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and so on. I believe in America and it's principles but to islamic radicals, I am the great satan. All of these polarizing views will someday wipe man and woman from the face of the earth. 2012 PS. Have a nice day.

 

If this is the case then does not Homeland Security, The "Great Border Crisis", TSA & the Airports and how about Free Speech zones, or what about the tightening restrictions on who, what and where you can take pictures, the threat of police violence and teh ever impending Terrorist Watch list, do these not qualify as terrorist acts as they are designed to press people into submission, submission to the will of the government.
I would like to point out something about a comment involving suicide bombers, oft times these bombings are between two factions and have been going on for years before the Americans were there. The important fact that we often forget is that Al Queda wants the US out of Middle Eastern affairs and this also means not supplying weapons and giving protection. 9-11 was ill thought out as a means of getting the US to turn its resources upon itself and circle its wagons, evidently someone didnt do their homework about our response methodology, or did they?
Perhaps the idea was more on how to destroy the US economically through an act of aggression, what better way than to cause us to start a war and pour vast resources into it, gut civil liberties and ultimately not only change the American way of life but also change our position within the global arena.
Terrorism like all methods is a means to an end, what the end is however is what determines how the actions are viewed. If terrorist acts brought about positive social change then they would be considered revolutionary however, if they bring about negative changes they are merely terrorist acts.
I think those who oppress are more likely to cry terrorist while the oppressed are more likely to yell freedom fighter.


*apologies if it seems slightly stream of thought, its been a long day*

 

Blade Runner

When are you perverts going to realize the new world order has already begun. It's all about CONTROL.

 

Typically the winners write history and it's after the fact that titles like terrorist or freedom fighter are coined. The same idea applies in a general sense to social movements, when a group like ALF attacks a lab using animals, society tends to deem there actions as terrorist. However when society deems that group was justified in action, like the whiskey rebellion, the group is deemed as freedom fighters.

 

Heyesey's probably hit the nail on the head... but I'm feeling cynical enough to suspect that the real difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is just whether they're on your side or not.

 

Your definition won't work. Its still viewed from the perspective of the non oppressed. The example Kimiko gave of Nelson Mandella is a perfect example. He actually committed what were termed terrorist acts although his objective was to gain freedom from apartheid, yet he is not considered a terrorist.

And you sure are wrong about people on this board believing that bombing Hiroshima was a good or justified act. I would suggest you start here and work your way forward.

https://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p=1092424&postcount=16

Your definition also has a fatal flaw in that for it to work it must freeze frame a moment in time when these struggles are never that simple. I would point out as I have before that most of what we consider terrorists in Palestine are actually seeking an autonomous homeland not the genocide of the Jews. It is further complicated by the historical facts that Israelis resorted to what we define as terrorism to drive the Palestinians out.

I would also use the example of what was called Manifest Destiny which resulted in the slaughter and oppression of Native Americans. We can't call the US Government and US Army either terrorists or Freedom Fighters can we yet their actions had the same result.