Distinction between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter

[One Cell]

OK. Before anybody starts shooting me down, I am a confirmed atheist, and as such, I have a thorough disdain for religious fundamentalists such as Bin Laden, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs, the Pope, the reverent Jerry Fawlwell, the Saudi Islamic regime, Orthodox Jews, etc.

However, remembering the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", I started replacing the word "terrorist" by "freedom fighter" in all of the recent articles, new laws and talks since 911. Boy, it started to sound frightening.

Think of yourself as a Saudi, or a resident of other Persian Gulf countries where there has been overwhelming US and allied presence for a long time. How do you get them out? You cannot go and sit down and discuss it with them peacefully, can you? Talk to whom? Say what?

You can try to joke around and tell them "The only difference between ET and a Yankee is that ET went home". But that would only get you a grin. What do you do to make them pack up and leave the countries which is not theirs?

Nobody condones killing 6,000 innocent people, but what is a freedom fighter supposed to do if he has no power to get the ETs to go home?

Anyone here has a good idea how to get the message across? Did any of the 6,000 vote? Did any of them object to their government's foreign policy during the past elections? If not, why not?

This debate is about whether Al Qaida should be dismissed and destroyed as a mere a terrorist organization, or are they sending a "freedom fighter's" message to which we are not paying any attention.

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by One Cell
What do you do to make them pack up and leave the countries which is not theirs?


Dress up as an Indian and throw tea into a harbor?

[Guinastasia]

It depends-if what they're doing benefits the US, they're "freedom fighters".

[pennylane]

Originally posted by One Cell
Think of yourself as a Saudi, or a resident of other Persian Gulf countries where there has been overwhelming US and allied presence for a long time. How do you get them out? You cannot go and sit down and discuss it with them peacefully, can you? Talk to whom? Say what?

This debate is about whether Al Qaida should be dismissed and destroyed as a mere a terrorist organization, or are they sending a "freedom fighter's" message to which we are not paying any attention.
Well, this is a subject close to my heart.

I think there is a difference between freedom fighting and terrorism. The term "freedom fighting" applies when a group of people are trying to rid a certain region of what they consider to be an oppressive or unjust regime. In order to do this they may be obliged to resort to violence as the oppressive region is usually the party in power and the freedom fighting group has no formal authority. (Being semi-pacifist I personally don't condone this.) Thus, freedom fighters are those seeking to resolve territorial disputes through violent agitation against an oppressive regime. Targets are often military, or at least political, in nature. In addition, the organisation usually takes responsibility for the actions of its members. In many disputed territories, such those involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, multiple organisations will claim responsibility for a single event.

In contrast to this, the organisation behind the events of September 11th targeted civilians. The victims included Arabs and Muslims, as well as other non-Americans, and thus the attacks cannot even be construed as some sort of agitation against Americans or "infidels". The attacks were anonymous and there was no evidence of motive. The sole purpose of such an attack is to spread terror among the general public - hence the term "terrorism". There is no way the terrorists could have achieved any other goal through their actions as, in fact, no goal was stated. Are they relying on the perspicacity of the American government to guess that Usama bin Laden masterminded these attacks and that his reasons for doing so are X, Y and Z?

Al Qaida is not sending a "freedom fighter's" message through these attacks. In fact they are not sending any messages at all, but are denying their very involvement with these attacks. They are deliberately refusing to send a message through these attacks.

If the U.S. presence in the Middle East is considered oppressive, there are hundreds of military and political targets which are necessarily available for such a presence to be considered oppressive. If an Arab organisation were to bomb these targets, and declare that it will continue to bomb all such targets until they are effectively removed from the region, I would consider the term "freedom fighting" to have some validity. But an anonymous attack upon New York City, unless carried out by members of some Brooklyn separatist movement, seems to me inarguably terrorist in nature.

[cmkeller]

The distinction is: freedom fighters attack enemy military targets, terrorists attack civilians.

[One Cell]

Originally posted by cmkeller
The distinction is: freedom fighters attack enemy military targets, terrorists attack civilians.

I thought one of the planes hit the Pentagon. Isn't that a military target?

As for the WTC towers, that represented the icon of the US financial-industrial-military empire that helps maintain oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. You see, billions of dollars of Saudi oil exports end up in financial institutions of the US, and is subsequently transferred to US defense contractors that fill Saudi military depots with useless and overpriced junk. Would you please look into where the 6 million barrels per day oil income of Saudi Arabia is going?

Prior to WTC tragedy, what about The US Navy ship in Aden, the US military compound in Saudi Arabia, the Marines in Lebanon, etc. etc. Aren't these all military targets?

Note that to the eyes of the Al Qaeda "terrorists", the death of the 5000 innocent people at WTC is probably seen as regrettable as the collateral damage caused by explosion of the US atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So much for your distinction cmkeller.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by One Cell
I thought one of the planes hit the Pentagon. Isn't that a military target?
Yes, and as such I think it is a more justifiable target than the WTC towers. In fact, I'll go even further and say that I would not have been upset at all about an attack on the Pentagon. But what of the passengers on the airline? Collateral damage? And why go all the way to the U.S. to look for a military target if the U.S. is supposedly oppressing the Middle East?

Originally posted by One Cell
As for the WTC towers, that represented the icon of the US financial-industrial-military empire that helps maintain oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The WTC towers are targeted because they represent an icon? Then why not target them at night when there is no-one inside? The victims were not actively helping to maintain oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Some of them were Arabs themselves. Some of them were tourists.

Originally posted by One Cell
Prior to WTC tragedy, what about The US Navy ship in Aden, the US military compound in Saudi Arabia, the Marines in Lebanon, etc. etc. Aren't these all military targets?
Yes and these were cases of freedom fighting, in my opinion.

Originally posted by One Cell
Note that to the eyes of the Al Qaeda "terrorists", the death of the 5000 innocent people at WTC is probably seen as regrettable as the collateral damage caused by explosion of the US atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Good point. Should there be a distinction between acts of war and terrorism/freedom fighting? I don't think the sole purpose of the atom bombs was to terrorise the Japanese people. Nor was the attack anonymous. The choice of target was pretty bad. But was it terrorism? I don't think so.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by pennylane
In fact, I'll go even further and say that I would not have been upset at all about an attack on the Pentagon.Is this a typo? (What country do you live in?

[pennylane]

France.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by One Cell
Originally posted by cmkeller
The distinction is: freedom fighters attack enemy military targets, terrorists attack civilians.

I thought one of the planes hit the Pentagon. Isn't that a military target?

Using a civilian airliner as a bomb? Sorry, no dice. That's terrorism.

As for the WTC towers, that represented the icon of the US financial-industrial-military empire that helps maintain oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

"Icon"? Puh-lease. Here's the facts: They were office buildings full of civilians.

Attacking them is terrorism.

Prior to WTC tragedy, what about The US Navy ship in Aden, the US military compound in Saudi Arabia, the Marines in Lebanon, etc. etc. Aren't these all military targets?

They certainly are. That's doesn't mean attacking them is right or justified, and in every case the perpetrators were violating the laws of war. However, they were not "terrorism" in the same sense the WTC attacks were.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by One Cell
This debate is about whether Al Qaida should be dismissed and destroyed as a mere a terrorist organization, or are they sending a "freedom fighter's" message to which we are not paying any attention.

Valid points. However, focusing on al-Qaeda's and allied groups actions solely in regards to attacks on the US. Fellow Muslims, peaceful folks have also been subject to terror tactics, and for no better reason than difference in method of worship. See my oft cited example of last December's attack on a mosque, during the Friday prayer, by al-Higra wa Takfiir. The slaughter of tourists --not even Americans-- at Luxour is another example. The GIA's war against villagers as much as Algerian security forces is yet another example.

Some civilian deaths in pursuit of your aims is expected. We expect, they can expect it and to put up double standards stinks of hypocrisy. However, targetting civilians as such for the sake of terror, is terrorism.

In re Izzy's question to Pennylane:

I don't myself disagree with her, although I am and would be "upset." I have friends who work in the Pentagon, luckily they survived. However, the Pentagon is a legitimate target. Was it legit to crash an airliner filled with civilians into the P-gon? I don't know. We have justified in the past civilian collateral damage in going after high-value targets. Command and control centers. That would be the Pentagon.

If I step away from my emotional self and try to force myself to look at this strictly on logic, I don't know that the Pentagon attack differs when one controls for different abilities to launch attacks.

That of course is not to say I support the attack. Rather, I don't believe in being hypocritical about bemoaning attacks by an enemy. Avenging, oh yes.

Of course, I would disagree with some of the substance in re supporting oppresive regimes.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
I don't myself disagree with her, although I am and would be "upset." I have friends who work in the Pentagon, luckily they survived. However, the Pentagon is a legitimate target. Was it legit to crash an airliner filled with civilians into the P-gon? I don't know. We have justified in the past civilian collateral damage in going after high-value targets. Command and control centers. That would be the Pentagon.
I'd just like to clarify for IzzyR and anyone else shocked at my callousness that I was trying to imagine an attack on the Pentagon which did not involve a commercial 'plane, and also that I would in that case still feel sorry for the families of those who died in the Pentagon, and I wouldn't think that their deaths were justified, but that the line between terrorism and freedom fighting (if there is indeed such a line) would be less distinct for me. The attack would still not satisfy my definition of freedom fighting as it would have occurred on American soil and I don't believe anyone considers America disputed territory. Perhaps it could be considered more an act of war, in that case. But a discussion about the difference between war and terrorism is a whole other topic. I was just interested in pointing out the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting, and my reasons for refusing to call the terrorists of September 11th freedom fighters.

[Ferrous]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
It depends-if what they're doing benefits the US, they're "freedom fighters".
And now, ladies and gentlemen, my first ever use of this icon:
:rolleyes:

But actually, Guin has the right of it, albeit buried in an overly-simplistic bit of USA-bashing.
It's easy: if they're on your side, you call them "Freedom fighters","Partisans", etc.
If they're on the other side, they're "Terrorists".

And from a historical perspective, if they won, they were freedom fighters.
If they lost, they were terrorists.

[IzzyR]

Pennylane,

I don't disagree with your most recent post. I was a bit taken aback by your statement that you would not be "upset at all" about such an attack.

There's a huge difference between regarding something as a legitimate act of war, and not being upset by that act. If the Chinese declared war on the USA (or France, for that matter) and invaded, I would regard these actions as legitimate acts of war, but I would not consider them justified, and would be quite upset indeed.

It would appear that you did not really mean what your words seemed to imply. Glad it is cleared up. :)

[pennylane]

Thanks, IzzyR... I guess I was comparing the reaction I would have had in the Pentagon scenario to the actual deep depression which I fell into after September 11th. I don't think I would have had as strong of an emotional reaction, although I would have been shocked and I would have felt sad for the victims and their families. So I should probably have used some word other than "upset" - perhaps "outraged" would have been better, I don't know...

I'm not feeling very eloquent today. :)

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Rather, I don't believe in being hypocritical about bemoaning attacks by an enemy. Avenging, oh yes.
Yes, this brings up another point regarding the anonymity of terrorist attacks as opposed to legitimate freedom fighting. The terrorist does not give the victimised nation a valid target for retaliation/justice. Most freedom fighters perceive their struggle as a war, and as such will take responsibility for what they consider their victories over the enemy. Terrorists, however, do not care about making a point. Their only goal is to terrorise the citizens of another nation - to render them not only afraid but helpless, unable to retaliate.

[Collounsbury]

This strikes me as a purely theoretical distinction of little use.

Regard the Algerian war for independance. The Algerian moujahidine hardly were looking to give the French a "valid target" for retaliation. Quite the contrary. By this analysis, they were terrorists.

Al-Qaeda, the GIA, al-Gamaa have specific goals which the State is in the way of. Programs for Islamic states. Not goals which I think are good, but they care about more than simple terror. They are wrong of course in their methods and even their goals, but it is about more than just terror.

[Monty]

Pennylane,

Talk to us about ETA, if you would be so kind.

But be prepared for many others to make the sort of comments about your take on that (assuming you recognize that is a terrorist group) as you have about the attack on the Pentagon.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Ferrous

But actually, Guin has the right of it, albeit buried in an overly-simplistic bit of USA-bashing.
It's easy: if they're on your side, you call them "Freedom fighters","Partisans", etc.
If they're on the other side, they're "Terrorists".

And from a historical perspective, if they won, they were freedom fighters.
If they lost, they were terrorists.


That was pretty much my point-the only reason I said it as I did is that it reminds of the whole contras ordeal-the "freedom fighters" who were the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

;)

Basically, I'm saying we've supported terrorism in the past, if it suited our aims. Not just the US-what country hasn't? That has nothing to do with US bashing. It's a fact that we've done so.

[Boyo Jim]

I sat through a 3-day acedemic conference on international terrorism in the late eighties (working at it as a grub of an audiovisual technician)at the Woodrow Wilson School for International Studies. Defining terrorism was supposed to be the first agenda item, and they never got past it.

Why? There was a State Department guy there, who everybody was very ginger with (I assume because the State Department is a big sugar daddy for think tank types). He didn't venture a definition, he simply set the parameters for the definition with three flavor-of-the-day examples.

One was the truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, which must be included in the definitions. The target was exclusively military, buy as usual some civilians were killed as well. Most of the acedemics I overheard during their breaks thought the this was not a terrorist act, but nobody openly challenged it. The other example was the Air Force bombing raid on Libya, another military target that resulted in civilian casualties. This must not be terrorism, according to the State Dept. The third was a German disco bombing, supposedly "sponsored" by Libya (though later evidence pointed at Syria), that triggered the Air Force attack. This must also be terrorist. End of conference...

As far as I know, with minor variations on the theme, the US hasn't moved much on this. Maybe the Swiss, the dependable neutrals, can come up with something. There'll never be consensus until there is a One World Government, when the definition will be, "anyone who attacks the One World Government".

Can anybody come up with a definition that meets all three criteria and doesn't include something amounting "cause we say so"?

[erislover]

Such a comment is somewhat interesting to me, Guin. It reeks of intellectual and semantic dishonesty, yes, but on the other hand we are justified in doing what we must to protect our interests. I don't like murder, I want murderers punished, I may murder them as punishment. Like vector cross products, the order of operations is important here, IMO. Do you really disagree? what about one man's self-defense against a murder. should we treat those the same as well? What sort of distinction are you willing to accept here?

I am currently engaged in reading a book titled The Phenomenon of Revolution which does go into some detail about distinctions between terrorism and other tactics. In fact, there are such precise distinctions between so many of the "styles" of revolution that I was amazed (I have a habit of painting things with a wide brush, you might say, and such a pedantic dissertation is often welcome after i listen to myself for any length of time ;)).

One of the distinctions the book liked to make about terrorism and terrorist actions was the length of operation(s) and the material strategic nature of the operation(s).

As far as material strategic value goes, attacking the WTC was not obviously of immediate strategic value; the parties responsible for those who are responsible (funding and other aid) did not have the military occupation of New York as their goal.

Other terrorist attacks, such as bombing foriegn embassies, also do not immediately strike me as a bid for geographic power in a governmental sense. Rather, in the most literal method of conveyance, the strikes mentioned do have a different stragic value: that of negative propaganda, or the distribution of fear.

American revolutionaries involved a whole movement to the extent that they were ready to fight (wide brush there, of course there was actually much deliberation) and had theories of government ready. They damaged property and otherwise jeapordized resources in an attempt to show their disgust and distaste for British rule. While I am fairly sure they weren't the nicest bunch of people, they had allies who were vested governments, they had a military force of their own, they had resources, etc etc.

But so does bin Laden, eh? And the Taliban is a revolutionary form of government, is it not? How is Taliban versus Northern Alliance any different than, say, Afghanistan's struggle against the USSR? How about Vietnam's resistence to French colonialism? How about Viet Cong's methods of sabotage and guerilla warfare?

I'm really asking you, Guin, is the distinction between a terrorist faction and freedom fighters just who one asks? Is it their size? Is it their cause? You seem to have a rather wide brush yourself. Was McVeigh a terrorist? The book I mentioned above would say no, what would you say?

While I am interested in seeing what distinction, if any, exists between the functionality of a terrorist versus those you compare to terrorists, I would rather hear a development of the thought than the simple impressionistic painting you are pushing here.

I feel that revolution and terrorism differ on at least one count: the violence is localized to the area that the revolutionaries want in their control. If that were true of terrorists, they want the whole world in their control. What do you say about fighting them then? I seem to be lacking understanding of your position. Can you enlighten?

And from a historical perspective, if they won, they were freedom fighters.
If they lost, they were terrorists.
Cute, Ferrous, but since Al Quaeda is not yet destroyed, we can't call them terrorists (that is, they haven't lost). Perhaps you would care to revise your definition, as lacking in distinction as it is?

[december]

Originally posted by One Cell
As for the WTC towers, that represented the icon of the US financial-industrial-military empire that helps maintain oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. OK, One Cell, I accept that they "represented" what you said to you. To me, they represented buildings where friends of mine worked and were horribly killed. The mall represented a small city full of restaurants, bookstores, and other shops where people of all ethnic backgrounds visited and hung out.

Once you allow "represented" to justify murder, then you can justify an attack any civilians at all. (E.g., "We bombed this nursary school, because it represented the unfair disadvantage under which our children operate.")

[Nietzsche]

I think Guin had it right.
It really does depend on which side you're looking at it from. Ask any Israeli nationalist how much of a freedom fighter any member of Hizballah, PFLP, or Hamas is. I doubt very many would agree they're anything more than a bunch of thugs.
Conversely, ask any Palestinian the same question.
It's entirely too much of an emotionally charged issue for it to be clearly defined. The United States military has, in the past, used tactics which would by most current standards fall into the category of terrorism. Sponsoring assassination attempts or coups are definitely something that is seen as terrorism today (case in point, look up the recent killing of a higher up elected Israeli official by members of the PFLP (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/index.html)).
I think, traditionally speaking, any paramilitary organization which is not an official branch of a government's military forces, could be viewed as a terrorist organization. By whom? Like Guin mentioned, that depends on whom you ask. I'm relatively certain (sorry, no cites) that the Taliban views the Northern Alliance as a terrorist organization. Now ask The US the same question. Probably not since they're not mentioned on the State Department's List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2001/index.cfm?docid=5258). The US State Department does not seem to agree with Iran about the purposes of Hizballah, but they certainly seem to concur about the Mujahedin-eh Khalgh.
So again, I think the definition of what is terrorism and who is a terrorist depends on whom you ask.

Now, regarding what are viable targets in a war and what aren't.

Originally posted by december
Originally posted by One Cell
As for the WTC towers, that represented the icon of the US financial-industrial-military empire that helps maintain oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. OK, One Cell, I accept that they "represented" what you said to you. To me, they represented buildings where friends of mine worked and were horribly killed. The mall represented a small city full of restaurants, bookstores, and other shops where people of all ethnic backgrounds visited and hung out.

Once you allow "represented" to justify murder, then you can justify an attack any civilians at all. (E.g., "We bombed this nursary school, because it represented the unfair disadvantage under which our children operate.")

December, not to minimize your loss, but what they represented to One Cell is in all likelihood the same thing they represent to billions of others who do not have friends or relatives who worked there.
Let me give you a different example. The US retaliated for the bombing of the USS Cole by bombing the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, correct? That plant "represented" a potential threat to the welfare of the US. Now, if we were to use your line of reasoning to make that plant off limits, how would you classify the US response? Would it be an act of terrorism, too?

Sorry One Cell, but I think the only answer to your question would be "the nation who has the biggest guns defines who's a terrorist and who's not." And of course, that list is subject to change with or without prior notice.

[Guinastasia]

To my way of thinking, anyone who uses murder and violence to frighten someone into submitting is using terrorism.

Whether it's the IRA, the Bolsheviks, the contras or Al Queda.

A revolution is more of a way of stating publically that you will not go along with such and such, and you are willing to fight publically to defend it. Terrorism seems to be more well, how should I put it-claudestine? Is that the right word?

A revolution would be the coup in Russia in March of 1917, or the Easter Uprising of 1916 in Dublin. Something with a clearly stated goal, that was upfront and prepared to fight an open battle-rather than sneaking around and attacking civilians and villages.

But again, it depends on what side you're on. ;)

And once again, maybe I'm just talking out of my arse.

[erislover]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
A revolution would be the coup in Russia in March of 1917, or the Easter Uprising of 1916 in Dublin. Something with a clearly stated goal, that was upfront and prepared to fight an open battle-rather than sneaking around and attacking civilians and villages.
Well, Guin, I don't mean to single you out here, you are obviously not the only one who feels that the "revisionist" style of definition is the correct perspective.

The quote I mention above seems to run counter to your previous post, however. I am still at a loss, but if you are not able to explain your feelings I understand perfectly. Won't be the first time it happened to an individual.

On a philosophical note I simply find the words we toss around so lightly, in this thread "terrorist," to be particularly enlightening and open to the same degree of skepticism that we would use against, say, Lamarckism or Uri Geller.

It may just end up that terrorists fall under the "I know one when I see one" definition, but I am not prepared to accept that just yet; at least, not here. I will not presume to define terrorism, if and when i do, in a manner that would correspond to the events around the real-world as they stand. I think we should define it, then use it to see just who falls under this definition. Then we ask, is this right?

I think that there is a possibly blurry line between freedom fighters and revolutionaries and terrorists and guerillas, but I do think those terms each have a distinct meaning, and I do feel that that meaning can be expressed without referencing, for example, the country I live in.

I certainly maintain what I said before about the occupational difference, or the locality of violence, that would serve, IMO, to distinguish between terrorism and revolution. Amercian revolutionaries, for example, didn't attack that which they didn't feel they could possess. I think that if we were to consider the WTC actors as revolutionaries under this idea it would require that they felt they should possess the WTC, or at least the ground on which it stood. Perhaps this is the case, as I mentioned, and they feel that world domination is really their goal. As far as we can tell there are no stated goals, and this does leave us free to speculate.

I think the difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism is far less clear off the top of my head. I am personally not quick to use the civilian/soldier distinction as the distinguishing characteristic, but it does seem that guerrilla tactics also are attributable to actions taken in order to militarily control a geographic region; though fear may be one method used to establish a stage of operations, fear itself is not the operation.

I also feel that fear is not an end-goal of terrorism either. True, it is one of the benefits of terrorist action, and it may be deliberately induced, but we must remember that fear is what is appealed to in any act of violence where control is the aim: we make them fear for their lives so they surrender, or work for us, or give us information, etc etc. This makes police officers and other law enforcement officials terrorists, so that is certainly an unacceptable definition.

So what have we ruled out? A sufficient definition of terrorism cannot require perspective of a specific nation. A sufficient definition of terrorism cannot describe any set of actions geared toward accomplishing geographic occupation/control unless that geographic region is the entire habitable planet. Though I do feel terrorism stems from irrationality, I would not presume that terrorists are insane in any legal or medical sense.

As far as goals go, I feel they are in some way important but difficult to define in anything but a vague sense. The goal must be such that diplomacy itself cannot resolve it; The goal must be one which can be resolved through violence (for example, diplomacy cannot turn water into wine, but neither can violence... I mention this to demonstrate that those two are not meant to be presented as dichotomous). I am not willing or not able to describe the goal in much more detail; this is, after all, a general term and any attempt to get too specific will turn the revisionists' heads.

So we have this: terrorism is the set of acts of a person or group of people take whose ends are found to be solvable by violence but not by diplomacy, which is either not related to geographic occupation or is occupation of the entire planet or perhaps the species, and which utilize stealth or subterfuge to compensate for a lack of a sufficiently large source of fighters.

Is this sufficient? Probably not, for as we can see by inspection entire governments are engaging in terrorism flat-out when they are at war in an attempt to quell a despotic spread, like WWII for example. I would not feel that we have defined terrorism effectively if the Allied powers are terrorists, regardless of whether any particular action could be considered a terrorist act. Am I raising revisionist eyebrows here? I hope not, but perhaps in the end we are all a bit Orwellian.

So how could we add to this definition? should we further restrict the goal? The acts? I think we need to focus on the group itself, but off the top of my sleepy head and through my tired eyes I'm afraid things escape me. I am satisfied that the above so far serves to be able to meaningfully distinguish from guerilla warfare and revolution, both of which ultimately require the occupation of a geographic location, and both of which focus the violence in that geographic area (border-setting, we might say).

This post is getting long enough, so those who disagree please point out where before I continue.

[Boyo Jim]

One purpose of guerilla warfare is to put fear and doubt in the minds of the opposition leadership, and their soldiers. Who can we trust behind our own lines? Where can we safely rest and replenish our troops?

Could the distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter be,"Who are you trying to frighten"?

[december]

Originally posted by Nietzsche
Let me give you a different example. The US retaliated for the bombing of the USS Cole by bombing the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, correct? That plant "represented" a potential threat to the welfare of the US. Now, if we were to use your line of reasoning to make that plant off limits, how would you classify the US response? Would it be an act of terrorism, too?IMHO it would have been an atrocity of some sort if we had intentionally bombed a pharmaceutical plant. Maybe not "terrorism", but definitely some sort of crime. We did do the bombing at night, presumably to avoid or minimze casualties.

However, we bombed that facility in the belief that it was a military target. We now know that the decision was made without appropriate input from cetain knowledgable sources -- input that would have prevented the tragic error. This was incompetence, not terrorism, in my book.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by december
Originally posted by Nietzsche
Let me give you a different example. The US retaliated for the bombing of the USS Cole by bombing the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, correct? That plant "represented" a potential threat to the welfare of the US. Now, if we were to use your line of reasoning to make that plant off limits, how would you classify the US response? Would it be an act of terrorism, too?IMHO it would have been an atrocity of some sort if we had intentionally bombed a pharmaceutical plant. Maybe not "terrorism", but definitely some sort of crime. We did do the bombing at night, presumably to avoid or minimze casualties.

However, we bombed that facility in the belief that it was a military target. We now know that the decision was made without appropriate input from cetain knowledgable sources -- input that would have prevented the tragic error. This was incompetence, not terrorism, in my book.

December, I think you missed my point with that example. I wasn't trying to insinuate that the action itself (whether it turned out to be a blunder or not) was terrorism, I was saying that if we were to define terrorist by what you said here:

To me, they represented buildings where friends of mine worked and were horribly killed. The mall represented a small city full of restaurants, bookstores, and other shops where people of all ethnic backgrounds visited and hung out.

...than it would be logical to say that the pharmaceutical plant was also off limits, no?
AFAIK, the US has never changed it's reason for bombing the plant. The reason was that the US suspected the plant of manufacturing bio-weapons. Do military personnel run the pharmaceutical plants in Sudan? If not, then there is no way that the plant (regardless of the outcome) should have been considered as a potential target. The US response is akin to the terrorists planting a bomb at a Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, or Raytheon facility which ,as the terrorists would probably perceive, are the places where weapons are made that pose potential threats to their safety. Wouldn't you consider a truck bomb at one of those places an act of terrorism?
So it seems that in war/reprisal actions, almost anything is a fair target, whether it be civilian dominated or military personnel dominated.
Which bring me back to my earlier post. It really does depend on which side you ask.

[The Ryan]

One Cell
What do you do to make them pack up and leave the countries which is not theirs?
What are you talking about? No, it's not our country. It's the Saudis'. And they've given us permission to be there. Minority groups have absolutely no right to unilaterally demand that we leave. Calling these people "freedom fighters" for trying to get rid of people that are legally there is like calling the KKK "freedom fighters" for trying to get rid of people that are legally in this country. They are fighting againt freedom; therefore they are not "freedom fighters".

Originally posted by One Cell
I thought one of the planes hit the Pentagon. Isn't that a military target?
I believe that cmkeller meant his statement to read "freedom fighters only attack military targets".

Prior to WTC tragedy, what about The US Navy ship in Aden, the US military compound in Saudi Arabia, the Marines in Lebanon, etc. etc. Aren't these all military targets?
I believe that referring to those as "terrorism" was misguided and only served to dilute the word.

Note that to the eyes of the Al Qaeda "terrorists", the death of the 5000 innocent people at WTC is probably seen as regrettable as the collateral damage caused by explosion of the US atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So much for your distinction cmkeller.
I think that it is quite clear that there was absolutely nothing "collateral" about the 5000 deaths.

Erislover
How is Taliban versus Northern Alliance any different than, say, Afghanistan's struggle against the USSR?
Their struggle against the NA is not what gets them called "terrorists".

Nietzsche
That plant "represented" a potential threat to the welfare of the US.
It wasn"t attacked for "representing" a potential threat, it was attacked for being a potential threat.

...than it would be logical to say that the pharmaceutical plant was also off limits, no?
How so?

I don't see much problem with saying that terrorism dpends on the situation. We say that "theft" is taking of property that is unjustified, and I haven't seen any threads about the hypocrisy of calling people that take stuff out of jewelry stores "thieves" and people who take cars with overdue payments "repo men". Terrorism is:
(a) violence or threat of violence
(b) intended to prevent people from exercising their freedom
(c) which the perpertrator had no right to interfere with

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by The Ryan


Nietzsche
That plant "represented" a potential threat to the welfare of the US.
It wasn"t attacked for "representing" a potential threat, it was attacked for being a potential threat.

Help me understand what you mean here. By emphasizing being, are you contending that in some way the plant was indeed a threat? If that's what you meant, I think history has shown otherwise.
Therefore, since it was indeed no threat to the safety or security of any US citizen or interest, it can only be assumed that the US perceived it as a threat.


...than it would be logical to say that the pharmaceutical plant was also off limits, no?
How so?

Well, you took my that snip right there out of context. When I said it there, I was trying to show december how the the view of an attack can change depending on the view you take and how if those in Sudan took his view would see the attack on the pharmaceutical plant.
However, if you're asking me how how is it that the plant should have been off limits, then my other question stands. Would the US companies that manufacture weapons, which are seen by terrorists abroad as being detrimental to their existance, "acceptable" to attack?





I don't see much problem with saying that terrorism dpends on the situation. We say that "theft" is taking of property that is unjustified, and I haven't seen any threads about the hypocrisy of calling people that take stuff out of jewelry stores "thieves" and people who take cars with overdue payments "repo men".

What a completely lame analogy. The "repomen" are fullfilling the requirement of a clause in a contract which was signed by the person they are reposessing whatever item from.
Thieves, are taking something which never belonged to them.
How does this analogy have anything to do with what we were talking about anyway?


Terrorism is:
(a) violence or threat of violence
(b) intended to prevent people from exercising their freedom
(c) which the perpertrator had no right to interfere with

Did you mean all three at the same time must be committed, or just one or two of them?

[pennylane]

Monty, I don't think it would be completely incorrect to call members of ETA freedom fighters. However, I also don't mind if you'd prefer to call them terrorists. I think of freedom fighting as a subset of terrorism. I personally don't have any problem with the use of the word terrorism to cover all acts of violence.

Collounsbury, I didn't mean to imply that freedom fighters should look to give their enemies a valid target for retaliation. What I meant was that terrorists, by acting anonymously, deny their enemies this. I felt that One Cell had implied that terrorists are trying to force their enemies to the negotiating table. But by attempting to blame other groups for their acts (e.g. disgruntled Jews in Florida, Israel, etc.) they are renouncing this possibility. In this case, much of their support comes from people who believe that they were framed, not from people who actually support their cause. This seems fraudulent to me...

In my opinion, the main points to consider are:
(a) Locality - Freedom fighters should, in my opinion, be fighting for the freedom of some oppressed region and should restrict their fighting to that region. The problem with this is that there has to be some way of deciding when someone actually has some claim over a region to begin with. As erislover mentioned, if world domination is the goal, then the terrorists could feel that they have a claim over all regions.
(b) Choice of Target - I feel that military/political targets are more suitable to the goals of freedom fighting than civilian targets. According to my definition of freedom fighting, the struggle should be against an oppressive regime, not against an entire culture or people. The attack on the WTC, to me, did not indicate that the terrorists had a problem with U.S. government or military, but that they had a problem with the existence of American people in their own homeland.
(c) Anonymity - It seems to me that those who have definite goals should be able to state these goals, indicate what steps they are going to take to accomplish these goals, and be willing to engage their enemies in the process. A good choice of target and locality can sometimes convey the desired message without anyone claiming responsibility, but an attempt to blame other groups and organisations for an attack prevents, or attempts to prevent, the enemies from engaging the terrorists in any way, even in a positive way (such as considering their demands).

[Dave Stewart]

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The terminology is entirely subjective. I agree with the comment from Ferrous that much of it depends upon who wins.

[alternate universe]
Those damn terrorists in the 17th century who foolishly tried to have the Queen's North American dominions secede were rightly hanged!
[/alternate universe]


Pennylane's criteria are worth looking at:


In my opinion, the main points to consider are:
(a) Locality - Freedom fighters should, in my opinion, be fighting for the freedom of some oppressed region and should restrict their fighting to that region. The problem with this is that there has to be some way of deciding when someone actually has some claim over a region to begin with. As erislover mentioned, if world domination is the goal, then the terrorists could feel that they have a claim over all regions.


What about an oppressed people? Slaves in the Carribean or North America who fought for the freedom of their people were dispossessed. Jewish freedom fighters in World War 2 also spring to mind.


(b) Choice of Target - I feel that military/political targets are more suitable to the goals of freedom fighting than civilian targets. According to my definition of freedom fighting, the struggle should be against an oppressive regime, not against an entire culture or people. The attack on the WTC, to me, did not indicate that the terrorists had a problem with U.S. government or military, but that they had a problem with the existence of American people in their own homeland.


In war, civilian infrastructure is a valid target (telecommunications, transport, etc.). Why the difference for freedom fighters/terrorists, and the regular military?

The WTC, as pointed out above, was not necessary infrastructure, but a symbol, and should not have been a valid target for anyone (Thinking "aloud", I guess throwing tea in the water was also symbolic, but at least civilians didn't die because of it). If indeed there is a distinction between terrorism/freedom fighting and criminal conduct, then this was criminal conduct - a crime against humanity, because of the scale of it.



(c) Anonymity - It seems to me that those who have definite goals should be able to state these goals, indicate what steps they are going to take to accomplish these goals, and be willing to engage their enemies in the process. A good choice of target and locality can sometimes convey the desired message without anyone claiming responsibility, but an attempt to blame other groups and organisations for an attack prevents, or attempts to prevent, the enemies from engaging the terrorists in any way, even in a positive way (such as considering their demands).


I have always found it macarbe that terrorists claim responsibility for attacks. Both terrorists and freedom fighters claim responsibility as a means of highlighting their cause, so I don't see this as a valid distinction. The fact that no one claimed responsibility for the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon means that perhaps terrorist have become more savvy (an admission of guilt is obviously evidence against them if they get caught).

So, with respect, I don't think your parameters work.


Lets think about this...

Are Chechens, who blow up train stations in Moscow as part of their fight for independence and in doing so kill civilians, freedom fighters? No, they're terrorists.

But if they blow up a train carrying munitions on their way to Chechnya and kill civilians doing it, are they freedom fighters? Well, maybe they're terrorists, maybe they're freedom fighters.

What if they kill a lot of civilians blowing up the train. Are they freedom fighters? No, they're terrorists. The aim was to kill civilians and destroy munitions.

What if they kill only a few civilians blowing up the train, and it was necessary to kill them to achieve their objective? Yes, they're freedom fighters. The primary aim was to destroy munitions, not kill civilians.

What if they blow up the Kremlin? They're freedom fighters because they attacked the building because it houses the Russian government: they're terrorists because they destroyed a symbol of Russia and killed civilian non-combatants.

Too subjective.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Dave Stewart
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The terminology is entirely subjective.
True, true...

I agree with your points regarding locality. It is a rather difficult criterion.

As far as choice of target is concerned, I personally don't think it is right to deliberately target civilians, even in war. Also I believe that one of the main goals of terrorism is to spread terror among civilians, so terrorists would deliberately target civilians, while freedom fighters would not (or should not). As far as regular military is concerned, there we bring war into the equation as well. A discussion of how war, terrorism and freedom fighting are different from each other would be interesting but I haven't given it much thought yet. Also, I feel that I am too pacifist in nature to really debate that point well...

Regarding anonymity, I still stand by what I said, although I may not be expressing it well. I suppose Guinastasia's remarks on revolution come close to my personal views. Terrorists may be "savvy" in refusing to admit guilt, but in my opinion that takes from the validity of their cause. It reduces them to mere criminals (in my opinion). Freedom fighters should be open about their struggle. I'm not saying that they should necessarily admit guilt, but attempting to place blame elsewhere? In my opinion that deceives their own supporters and does not further their goals except as a self-preservation tactic.

[aegypt]

Here's an alternate definition:

Terrorist: somebody who practices the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and has a heavy foreign accent in the movie version.
Freedom fighter: somebody who practices the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and has a barely noticable foreign accent in the movie version.

[Embra]

Hmm..

I tend to agree with those who say "it depends on who you ask": The South African government of the 1970s and 80s would doubtless have considered the ANC terrorists: they planted bombs in non-military targets, interfering with the rights of people who legitimately (under that regime) were going about their business. At the same time many people in the West considered them "freedom fighters": they had a stated aim (the end of the apartheid system) and were working towards that. Similarly the IRA can be seen as "freedom fighters" (particularly in respect of the creation of the Republic) but also as "terrorists".

Isn't it more nearly the case that many "freedom fighters" commit "terrorist" acts during the course of their struggle? The terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism is a _tactic_, as has so aften been pointed out by those who question the feasibility of having a "war" against it. Freedom fighting is by contrast an ideal which may use a combination of tactics (propaganda, conventional warfare) to bring about its goal. Whether the goal is "freedom" will to a certain extent depend on whether you agree that the people represented by the movement are somehow "unfree" to begin with.

Not all acts by insurgents are necessarily terrorist, although any act of violence against the existing state apparatus tends to be labelled as such by the state.

Of course all this assumes that we have defined what a "terrorist" tactic is. Did we do that? Conventional warfare has in the past included acts which some people might think of as acts of terror...

Embra

note to self: put John Pilger book back on shelf ;)

[erislover]

I wanted to mention that Merriam0Webster lists the first use in 1795... anyone know what that usage was all about and who used it? Just for the sake of curiosity.

As well, if we want to get picky all words are subjective in meaning. Saying that about terrorism is no more enlightening than saying "pain gives me pleasure" or "that is my favorite shade of blue."

I would challenge anyone to write a paper in college or even high school which used the terms interchangably and get a good mark. I would definitely drop my case if someone showed me that.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Embra
The South African government of the 1970s and 80s would doubtless have considered the ANC terrorists: they planted bombs in non-military targets, interfering with the rights of people who legitimately (under that regime) were going about their business. At the same time many people in the West considered them "freedom fighters": they had a stated aim (the end of the apartheid system) and were working towards that.
Well, I think that is a common mistake which many people make, namely, to judge the means according to the end. Putting a stop to apartheid is considered a worthy goal, thus any means taken to achieve it are considered valid and justifiable. In that case, of course, there can be no distinction between terrorism and freedom fighting.

Originally posted by Embra
Isn't it more nearly the case that many "freedom fighters" commit "terrorist" acts during the course of their struggle? The terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism is a _tactic_, as has so aften been pointed out by those who question the feasibility of having a "war" against it.
Good point. I don't think there are actually any freedom fighters (whatever the criteria) who have not resorted to terrorist tactics at some point or another to achieve their goals.

Originally posted by Embra
Conventional warfare has in the past included acts which some people might think of as acts of terror...
Yes, and of course in many cases conventional warfare is undertaken against civilians in non-disputed territory, but it is usually not anonymous, and the nation under attack can respond against a known enemy. I'm not sure myself about the line between war and terrorism, but I think this could be a factor in deciding where to place that line.

erislover, don't drop your case, please! You're doing a better job than I am at the moment...

[Monty]

I mostly agree with The Ryan on this issue; however, although the Pentagon may be considered a military target, the FACT remains that the United States was not at war, there were no hostilities, when it was attacked. You may recall that there was a big ballyhoo over the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happening BEFORE the declaration of war against the US was delivered.

Pennylane: You really do need to educate yourself some more about the Basque region in regards to France and Spain if you think they are freedom fighters of any sort. Basques have marched to support those governments' reactions to the atrocious terrorism committed by the ETA.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Monty
I mostly agree with The Ryan on this issue; however, although the Pentagon may be considered a military target, the FACT remains that the United States was not at war, there were no hostilities, when it was attacked.
The argument against this is that al-Qaida/bin Laden had supposedly already declared war on the United States. Although even if this is true, that still doesn't make it freedom fighting. I suppose one could call it an act of war...

Originally posted by Monty
Basques have marched to support those governments' reactions to the atrocious terrorism committed by the ETA.
Yes, I know ETA has lost a lot of support from Basque people because of their increasing ruthlessness. I feel that some incidents perpetrated by ETA certainly don't fall into the freedom fighting category, but others could be considered as such according to my criteria.

[Embra]

erislover:

I would challenge anyone to write a paper in college or even high school which used the terms interchangably and get a good mark. I would definitely drop my case if someone showed me that.

Agreed - but the reason I don't think they are interchangeable is not because I think they apply to two different kinds of _conduct_ but to two different aspects of a particular kind of struggle.

Is a person a "terrorist" who has committed one or many acts of terror? Or who belongs to an organisation whose members have committed such acts? Or who is engaged in any kind of violent opposition to a ruling group, including civil war?

The reason that saying 'the meaning of word "terrorism" is subjective' might be the best we can do is that because it is a pejorative term it is almost impossible to say what its "real" meaning is from the collection of meanings above. All the dictionary says is that it means the use of "violence" or "intimidation" for "political ends". That's extremely broad. The dictionary doesn't even help out with any handy suggections as to how freedom-fighting might be accomplished without including violence or intimidaton. A leafleting campaign maybe? Societies themselves draw up charters of "acceptable" wartime behaviour and such, but because both the terms we're concerned about are only really used to refer to insurgents rather than nation-states' armies fighting a "conventional" war, it's not really enough to go on. I see your point about strategic objectives, and I think this may be the best way to go in trying to ascertain whether an act is terroristic or not, but this doesn't solve the problem of whether a group can be labelled "terrorists" as a whole.

BTW, the 1795 origin of the word terrorism comes from descriptions of the Jacobin "Reign of Terror" in post-revolutionary France, according to Dave Wilton (http://www.wordorigins.org/wordort.htm) :)

I'm going to post this now as I've retyped it loads of times and thoroughly frustrated myself and forgotten what I actually think several times... I basically agree with you and pennylane but I don't think we can actually "compare and contrast" terrorism, war and freedom-fighting (as pennylane suggested) because they are apples and oranges. Freedom-fighting is a subjective description of war, usually used in reference to civil war or insurgency. Terrorism is a tactic, not an act in itself comparable to the waging of a war, although it may occur within the context of a war.

Ach, I've probably repeated myself and everyone else about 50 times now...

Embra

[erislover]

Well, pennylane, I am wondering about what it is we are fighting here. One, yes, of course all words' definitions depend on who we ask. Two, yes, some words can be used interchangably within certain contexts. Three, question, is "terrorism" such a word?

I honestly don't think so. I am sure it is clear that propaganda and other similar campaigns can twist words to suit the political agenda of the party-power. As such, common usage of the word "terrorist" is not very enlightening with respect to trying to understand history, political power and motivation, etc etc.

I also agree that it should be noted that terrorism and "a terrorist act" are not necessarily coming from the same source... in fact, "a terrorist act" is probably very much more subjective than the former. Consider that we have a sound, objective definition of terrorism, whatever it is (it is actually unimportant for the following point). Now, an "act of terrorism" would then most reaonably be defined as "an act which can be likened to those performed in terrorism." Here is the subjectivity, you see, in that one must make that connection. The connection isn't there by default, so to speak. If I am standing on a tree I am standing on wood. If I am fighting in Massachusetts for control over Massachusetts I am very likely a freedom fighter or revolutionary. If I am fighting in Massachusetts for a cause in Guam and blaming those in India, perhaps we should consider a distinction. What do you think? Is this really such nonsense that terrorism can be objectively defined?
Terrorism is a tactic, not an act in itself comparable to the waging of a war, although it may occur within the context of a war.
This is partially agreeable to me. That is, not only is terrorism different from revolution, but terrorist acts are not indicative of terrorism. Would you agree?

Localized violence. This one seems to have the most agreement from those that agree it isn't ultimately in our heads.
Small quantity of people. Could be as few as one.
Goal is unclear (not stated) or absurdly large (domination of planet, for example)

I actually feel this handles it quite well. Yes, embra, there are many similarities between the phenomena of warfare in its sundry forms. Given a sifficient level of abstraction we can easily make them all similar as they are all acts of violence. Then we might ask, what kind of violence?-- for what purpose?-- directed at whom? and so on, and proceed to form some sort of definition which rules out arbitrary equivalence.

Again, it isn't that I doubt that there are persons who are revisionists who use flimsy if not arbitrary definitions of terrorism in order to further their goal or make their (weak) point. I believe the current administration is possibly guilty of not clearly stating what they mean by "terrorism," but the definition we seem to be working towards here certainly does not require you live in a certain nation and does not require wins or losses of groups involved in combat, and it also seems to work in favor of the current administration, at least so far as fighting Al Quaeda forces go. The Taliban regime is another matter altogether.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by erislover
If I am fighting in Massachusetts for a cause in Guam and blaming those in India, perhaps we should consider a distinction. What do you think?
Is this question addressed to me? 'Cause that's what I've been trying to say all along. Thanks for phrasing it so well, anyway.

I agree with the first of your three indicators of terrorism (if that's what they were) - and as you say, that one has the most agreement. I'm not sure about the second - small quantity of people? I suppose this could be used to distinguish between terrorism and revolution. But what about freedom fighting? And the third, I feel, is sort of connected to my personal second and third points which were Anonymity and Choice of Target. I feel that claiming responsibility and choosing distinct targets is part of clear statement of goals. Anonymous, random attacks do not make a point or send a message. So I guess I'd agree with you on that one also.

[erislover]

As usual, I messed up. in my above I meant to say "not localized", not "localized". Sheesh. :(

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Nietzsche
Help me understand what you mean here. By emphasizing being, are you contending that in some way the plant was indeed a threat?
No, I was contrasting "being" with your "representing". The belief that it was a threat was the reason for it being attacked, not what it represented.

Well, you took my that snip right there out of context. When I said it there, I was trying to show december how the the view of an attack can change depending on the view you take and how if those in Sudan took his view would see the attack on the pharmaceutical plant.
It immediately followed a quote by december, which implied that your position that the plant was off limits was not derived from premises held by the Sudanese, but was in fact a logical consequences of december's own statements. I do not see how that is.

he US companies that manufacture weapons, which are seen by terrorists abroad as being detrimental to their existance, "acceptable" to attack?
There are situations where they would be valid military targets. For instance, it WWII factories were often bombed. But I do not think that simply viewing something as "detrimental" is sufficient justification.

What a completely lame analogy... How does this analogy have anything to do with what we were talking about anyway?
By "lame analogy" I assume you mean that it does not properly show the point I was trying to illustrate. Yet you admit that you don't know what the point is. How can you evaluate an analogy when you don't understand it? Furthermore, I find your use of the term "lame" to be disrespectful.

I consider your response to my analogy to be a good example of my point. You don't even question that in one case property rightfully belongs to the one who took it, and in the other it doesn't. Yet the whole concept of property ios subjective. That does not make it meaningless, any more than terrorism being subjective makes it meaningless. The jewelry thief may honestly consider himself to have the right to take the jewelry. That doesn' make him not a thief, any more than a terrorist considering himself a "freedom fighter" makes him one.

Terrorism is:
Did you mean all three at the same time must be committed, or just one or two of them?
All.

[erislover]

Mm, no, wasn't supposed to be addressed to you, penny. I think we are in pretty perfect agreement here :)

[Ferrous]

Okay, I haven't read all the posts made today on this thread, as they are VERY LONG, and I feel that I understand this topic to my own satisfaction. So I'll let y'all debate amongst yourselves, but I do wish to respond to erislover's comment to me:

And from a historical perspective, if they won, they were freedom fighters.
If they lost, they were terrorists.


Cute, Ferrous, but since Al Quaeda is not yet destroyed, we can't call them terrorists (that is, they haven't lost). Perhaps you would care to revise your definition, as lacking in distinction as it is?
No, I don't wish to revise, but I will expand a bit.

First, note that in the first part of my post, I gave my take on the operative definition of a current guerriila organization:: if they're on your side, you call them "Freedom fighters","Partisans", etc.
If they're on the other side, they're "Terrorists".
In other words, there is no real easy distinction. See previous posts by Colounsbury, Neitzsche, and yojimboguy. "Terrorist" is an epithet, a label one places upon one's enemies. To al Qaeda, we are the terrorists.

The part of my post you quoted deals with how such groups are dealt with in history books. In the extremely unlikely event that Islamic fundamentalist groups manage to overthrhrow the US and Europe and go on to become the dominant world power, history will refer to bin Laden, et al., as glorious revolutionary heroes.

That's what I meant. I admit, it may be a bit simplistic, but what it boils down to is that I believe the distinction is in the eye of the beholder.

[Monty]

Pennylane: And exactly what nation, what country, was bin Laden representing when he "declared war" against the United States?

I'll help you out here: NONE. Therefore the United States was not at war and whatever actions bin Laden and his cohorts took were terrorism, not hostile military actions between nations.

[Satori]

I'm with you Ferrous. The distinction is in the eye of the beholder. Although I'd add a variable: it's in the eyes of the popular media as well. I think it's an important variable since the popular media unfortunately effectively shapes the perception of so many.

Let's all remember that back in the days of the Stephen Biko and Nelson Mandela and their organization the ANC, the United States government considered the ANC a terrorist group and all its members TERRORISTS.

"terrorist"
"freedom fighter"

Labels the governments and press toss around at will. The only distinction lies in whether those to whom the label is affixed support the agendas of the US and its sacred corporations, thereby ensuring that capitalism prevails (freedom fighter), or not, in which case the label is turned over (terrorist).

Remember, too, that the activities of the CIA funded death squads which have been wreaking havoc in every country in South America for decades now are referred to by the US government as "freedom fighting" and "democracy promoting".

The world is ripe with euphemisms. Try not to get caught up in semantics, I'd say.

Listen to and/or read Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti to rise above the euphemistic sludge of the mainstream press and see with more clarity a truth more based in reality.

[Guinastasia]

How am I a revisionist? The March Revolution in 1917 in Russia had nothing to do with terrorism-I don't recall Kerensky going out and bombing train stations?

However, the October Coup, with the storming of the Winter Palace WAS a terrorist action. (Many people don't realize that the initial transfer of power in the Russian government was largely peaceful-the Tsar abdicating and the Provisional Government taking over. It didn't get REALLY ugly until later).

I hesitate to call myself a pacifist-because there are scumbags out there who I think people should defend themselves from. BUT...because the word freedom fighter brings to MY mind the contras, it pretty much gives me a bad taste in my mouth.

Anymore, I'm idealistic and overly sensitive. I don't like to see any bloodshed. I know it's not going to happen-that's unrealistic.

So, let's just say, that perhaps the two terms cannot be separated. Or that terrorism should NEVER be used as a way of obtaining freedom.

[Dave Stewart]

Originally posted by Satori
I'm with you Ferrous

<snip>
Remember, too, that the activities of the CIA funded death squads which have been wreaking havoc in every country in South America for decades now are referred to by the US government as "freedom fighting" and "democracy promoting".

<snip>

The world is ripe with euphemisms. Try not to get caught up in semantics, I'd say.

Listen to and/or read Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti to rise above the euphemistic sludge of the mainstream press and see with more clarity a truth more based in reality.

I'm glad you raised Chomsky. To someone like Chomsky, the United States has perpetuated terrorism, as you say, in the guise of freedom fighting.

Americans say they don't participate in state-sponsored terrorism - they were helping out against those Sandinista! Other people say they aren't freedom fighters at all.

Londoners say the IRA are terrorists. Some Northern Irish say they're freedom fighters. Americans aren't sure. And with their disarmament and integration into a Northern Irish parliament, they look like successful freedom figthers from one perspective - but try explaining that to the families of people who were killed when the IRA used to plant bombs in trash cans in London Underground stations.

Erislover - I'd take you up on that challenge to write the essay with the words interchangably used, if I had the time.

[Guinastasia]

Didn't the IRA come out of the old Irish Volunteers, who were "freedom fighters", for the most part? Who then turned terrorist?

[Dave Stewart]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Didn't the IRA come out of the old Irish Volunteers, who were "freedom fighters", for the most part? Who then turned terrorist?

<burblegurblewurble> Sorry, starting to drool from this one.

How do you "turn terrorist"?

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Originally posted by Nietzsche
Help me understand what you mean here. By emphasizing being, are you contending that in some way the plant was indeed a threat?
No, I was contrasting "being" with your "representing". The belief that it was a threat was the reason for it being attacked, not what it represented.

Gotcha. I thought you were implying, emphasizing the word being, that somehow the plant was indeed a viable threat.


Well, you took my that snip right there out of context. When I said it there, I was trying to show december how the view of an attack can change depending on the view you take and how if those in Sudan took his view would see the attack on the pharmaceutical plant.
It immediately followed a quote by december, which implied that your position that the plant was off limits was not derived from premises held by the Sudanese, but was in fact a logical consequences of december's own statements. I do not see how that is.

Allow me to show you.

december stated the following:

OK, One Cell, I accept that they "represented" what you said to you. To me, they represented buildings where friends of mine worked and were horribly killed. The mall represented a small city full of restaurants, bookstores, and other shops where people of all ethnic backgrounds visited and hung out.

My understanding of his/her point here is that since his friends worked there, it represented something different to him than it did to those who attacked those places.
Well, if we were to apply that logic to the Sudanese, there many be people who would say that the attack on the pharmaceutical plant was an act of terrorism. I didn't see december make any other distinction as to why those targets should not be viewed as viable targets to attack other than the fact that he/she had friends who worked there. I'm really going out on a limb on this one, but I think there are probably some people who had friends/relatives who worked at the pharmaceutical plant. And hence, it may be viewed as an act of terrorism if they follow december's line of thinking. Does that clarify what I meant?



he US companies that manufacture weapons, which are seen by terrorists abroad as being detrimental to their existence, "acceptable" to attack?
There are situations where they would be valid military targets. For instance, it WWII factories were often bombed. But I do not think that simply viewing something as "detrimental" is sufficient justification.

Okay, but without getting too much into details, do you agree that the aforementioned US factories are indeed detrimental to the existence of the terrorists? After all, the US president has declared war on all international terrorists (even if congress hasn't officially sanctioned the use of the military, bombs have been dropping), then I'm assuming you'd say the US factories are indeed viable targets. Your president has declared war, and these are the factories where you make your war machines. Sounds like in some strange way, a truck bomb going off at a Northrop Grumman plant could be seen as a "freedom fighter" attack and not a "terrorist" attack, correct?


What a completely lame analogy... How does this analogy have anything to do with what we were talking about anyway?
By "lame analogy" I assume you mean that it does not properly show the point I was trying to illustrate.

That is indeed what I meant.



Yet you admit that you don't know what the point is. How can you evaluate an analogy when you don't understand it?

Because the analogy was lame. The definition of lame in this instance is (according to Webster's Dictionary)

"lacking needful or desirable substance : WEAK, INEFFECTUAL"

And since I found myself unable to fully ascertain what the purpose of the analogy was, I called it lame. It was too weak to deliver the point you were trying to make.




Furthermore, I find your use of the term "lame" to be disrespectful.

I apologize. I think you misunderstood me and felt I may have been calling you lame.



I consider your response to my analogy to be a good example of my point. You don't even question that in one case property rightfully belongs to the one who took it, and in the other it doesn't. Yet the whole concept of property is subjective. That does not make it meaningless, any more than terrorism being subjective makes it meaningless. The jewelry thief may honestly consider himself to have the right to take the jewelry. That doesn' make him not a thief, any more than a terrorist considering himself a "freedom fighter" makes him one.

No, I disagree. I think property ownership is not as ambiguous as clashing ideologies may be. The concept of a terrorist being a freedom fighter truly can be a lot more subjective than property ownership. For example, one can clearly show who had legal entitlement to a piece of property much more clearly than one can show that their "cause" is right or just, correct?
I'm sure there are times when even theft of property can be ambiguous (Kashmir, Taiwan, Tibet, Israel come to mind), however, in general, one can clearly point to who had claims on something prior to it being taken away from them. If there is no reason for the original owner to be parted with his property, the case can be viewed as theft.
In the case of freedom fighters and terrorists, the arguments put forth by either side often seem valid with a change of viewpoint, and neither side can ever fully demonstrate how one side is more "right" than the other.

Terrorism is:
Did you mean all three at the same time must be committed, or just one or two of them?
All.

Well, if that's the case, almost all formal militaries throughout time and right on up through today are terrorists.

[erislover]

Getting bogged down in semantics? The thread is about distinguishing the meaning of words, fer chissake! :p Wowza.

I think it does also serve us to note that terrorism is a tactic, a terrorist act is on that, were it or similar acts to be carried out over time would result in terrorism, and that a terrorist is one who is involved in terrorism NOT just in terrorist acts.

The Oklahoma bombing, for example, was a terrorist act committed by a person. In my opinion, by the guide I've laid here, he is not a terrorist and did not engage in terrorism. Looking at the Unabomber, though, we see a series of terrorist acts over a broad, indefinite geographic area. Terrorism, terrorist, terrorist acts.

Is anyone in disagreement here? Really?

Yes, governments over time have committed terrorist acts. It is an effective tactic, and frankly I'd be suprised if they didn't when the time came and they would serve the purpose. There is little question that terrorist acts can be effective in inciting action... it just isn't always the action those who engage in terrorist acts were expecting. :p

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Dave Stewart
Originally posted by Guinastasia
Didn't the IRA come out of the old Irish Volunteers, who were "freedom fighters", for the most part? Who then turned terrorist?

<burblegurblewurble> Sorry, starting to drool from this one.

How do you "turn terrorist"?


Guess you're right on that one.

What I mean, didn't the IRA come from the militant, extremist branch? The ones who lost in the 1921 civil war?

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Nietzsche
My understanding of his/her point here is that since his friends worked there, it represented something different to him than it did to those who attacked those places.
Okay, we're agreed here.

Well, if we were to apply that logic to the Sudanese, there many be people who would say that the attack on the pharmaceutical plant was an act of terrorism.
Your interpretation of december's statement may very well be correct, but I don't see that it said that the WTC attack was terrorist because the WTC represented something different to december than to the terrorists, but that this idea of what the WTC stands for is just as valid as the terrorists.

I didn't see december make any other distinction as to why those targets should not be viewed as viable targets to attack other than the fact that he/she had friends who worked there.
december was responding to a particular argument: that the WTC deserved to be bombed because of what it represents. december responded to that particular argument. I don't see any implication that that response, in itself, establishes that the WTC should not have been bombed.
Here's another shot at an analogy:
"JFK couldn't have been killed by Oswald, because Oswald didn't actually have a gun".
"Actually, Oswald did have a gun".
"So the fact that Oswald had a gun proves that he did it?"

Okay, but without getting too much into details, do you agree that the aforementioned US factories are indeed detrimental to the existence of the terrorists?
Yes.

Sounds like in some strange way, a truck bomb going off at a Northrop Grumman plant could be seen as a "freedom fighter" attack and not a "terrorist" attack, correct?
You have a good argument for why it wouldn't be a terrorist attack. However, just because someone isn't a terrorist, that doesn't mean that he's a freedom fighter.

No, I disagree. I think property ownership is not as ambiguous as clashing ideologies may be. The concept of a terrorist being a freedom fighter truly can be a lot more subjective than property ownership. For example, one can clearly show who had legal entitlement to a piece of property much more clearly than one can show that their "cause" is right or just, correct?
How is a piece of paper from the US government saying that someone has the entitlement to a piece of property any less subjective than a piece of paper from the US government declaring someone to be a terrorist? The US Congress has signed a declaration condemning these attacks. If the government has the power to declare certain acts "theft" just by signing a piece of paper declaring someone to be the "rightful" owner, why don't they have the power to declare some people to be "terrorists" by signing a piece of paper declaring a certain cause to be the "right" cause?

In the case of freedom fighters and terrorists, the arguments put forth by either side often seem valid with a change of viewpoint, and neither side can ever fully demonstrate how one side is more "right" than the other.
That's your opinion, I suppose. My opinion is that there are very few cases where both cause are valid. Either one cause is valid and the other is not valid, or neither is valid. For instance, the IRA calls the Ulsters terrorists, and the Ulsters call the IRA terrorists. You know what? They're both terrorists. Just because you have a convincing argument for why your opponent's cause isn't valid, that doesn't make your cause valid. And just because there are some people hav econvinced themselves that they're not terrorists, that doesn't mean that they aren't terrorists, nor does it mean that terrorism is overly subjective.

Well, if that's the case, almost all formal militaries throughout time and right on up through today are terrorists.
I suppose you could make the argument that all armies have, at some point or another, been terrorist, but I really don't see how all of them are currently terrorist.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by erislover

I think it does also serve us to note that terrorism is a tactic, a terrorist act is on that, were it or similar acts to be carried out over time would result in terrorism, and that a terrorist is one who is involved in terrorism NOT just in terrorist acts.

The Oklahoma bombing, for example, was a terrorist act committed by a person. In my opinion, by the guide I've laid here, he is not a terrorist and did not engage in terrorism. Looking at the Unabomber, though, we see a series of terrorist acts over a broad, indefinite geographic area. Terrorism, terrorist, terrorist acts.

Is anyone in disagreement here?

Yes. The US State Department (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2419).

They state the following definitions:


The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

If one was to use the above definition for "terrorist group" in a singular form, it would state something like the following:

The term "terrorist" means any one person practicing, or has signifigant [involvement perhaps] with terrorist groups that practice, terrorism.

They don't seem to ever mention how many times a person or persons needs to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, one can safely assume, once is probably all you need.


Really?

Really.

And I'm not sure you did much to help the OP find a destinction between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist.
If you say it's okay to use terrorist tactics, then how can one distinguish between the two?
From what I could tell, your definition says you're only a terrorist if you've committed a terrorist act more than once.
And I'm only guessing here, but I think some folks in OKC would find the term terrorist very fitting for Mr. McVeigh. In fact, he and his actions seem to fit perfectly into the State Department's definition.

[erislover]

Originally posted by Nietzsche for the State Department

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

So they are less specific than I was. Ok.
They don't seem to ever mention how many times a person or persons needs to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, one can safely assume, once is probably all you need.
According to the State Department, yep. Are you agreeing with them?

And I'm not sure you did much to help the OP find a destinction between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist.
If you say it's okay to use terrorist tactics, then how can one distinguish between the two?
You say chocolate an vanilaa are two flavors of ice cream, how can you distinguish between the two?

I did not place any moral value to either freedom fighting or terrorism. I did not include morality in the definitions. Morality has nothing to do with either, IMO, if we are looking for objective definitions.
From what I could tell, your definition says you're only a terrorist if you've committed a terrorist act more than once.
I think that is correct. Otherwise, you haven't really engaged in terrorism. I am not particularly suprised that I disagree with our (or perhaps just my) government.
And I'm only guessing here, but I think some folks in OKC would find the term terrorist very fitting for Mr. McVeigh. In fact, he and his actions seem to fit perfectly into the State Department's definition.
Well, then the state department can call him a terrorist. And I will then sit on the fence and say, "But yeah, Mr State Department, the hiroshima bombing was terrorism too!"

Does the government now declare war on itself?

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Originally posted by Nietzsche

Well, if we were to apply that logic to the Sudanese, there many be people who would say that the attack on the pharmaceutical plant was an act of terrorism.
Your interpretation of december's statement may very well be correct, but I don't see that it said that the WTC attack was terrorist because the WTC represented something different to december than to the terrorists, but that this idea of what the WTC stands for is just as valid as the terrorists.

I don't ever recall arguing that this point of view was any less valid. I was merely trying to display how viewpoint can change what the attack is seen as. I think you just re-affirmed my original point. Did I miss your point here?

I didn't see december make any other distinction as to why those targets should not be viewed as viable targets to attack other than the fact that he/she had friends who worked there.
december was responding to a particular argument: that the WTC deserved to be bombed because of what it represents. december responded to that particular argument. I don't see any implication that that response, in itself, establishes that the WTC should not have been bombed.

And I was trying to show december that not all targets can be defined by who works there. I think my subsequent example of how a truck bomb going off in a Northrop Grumman plant as another "potential target" further showed what I was trying to prove. If looked at by the average person, an attack there would be seen as a terrorist attack. If looked at through the eyes of a paramilitary general, it could be seen as a war factory detrimental to their efforts.
I have no idea how the terrorists went about selecting the WTC as targets. I can only assume the same assumption put forth by One Cell was indeed their motivation. I was trying to augment the example by showing how a seemingly appropriate response by the US in Sudan could be viewed as terrorism.


Okay, but without getting too much into details, do you agree that the aforementioned US factories are indeed detrimental to the existence of the terrorists?
Yes.

Sounds like in some strange way, a truck bomb going off at a Northrop Grumman plant could be seen as a "freedom fighter" attack and not a "terrorist" attack, correct?
You have a good argument for why it wouldn't be a terrorist attack. However, just because someone isn't a terrorist, that doesn't mean that he's a freedom fighter.

I never said it did. I said it depends on how you look at it.



In the case of freedom fighters and terrorists, the arguments put forth by either side often seem valid with a change of viewpoint, and neither side can ever fully demonstrate how one side is more "right" than the other.
That's your opinion, I suppose. My opinion is that there are very few cases where both cause are valid. Either one cause is valid and the other is not valid, or neither is valid. For instance, the IRA calls the Ulsters terrorists, and the Ulsters call the IRA terrorists. You know what? They're both terrorists. Just because you have a convincing argument for why your opponent's cause isn't valid, that doesn't make your cause valid. And just because there are some people hav econvinced themselves that they're not terrorists, that doesn't mean that they aren't terrorists, nor does it mean that terrorism is overly subjective.

Actually, it does. Because now you're calling into question the validity of their aims. That's extremely subjective. If it's your opinion that very few cases have valid causes, it may be because you're not involved with, or affected by, the causes. It's not going to be the same for those who are championing those causes, whether in Northern Irelend or elsewhere. And as I have been trying to show, the targets they select may not seem like likely targets to others who are not involved with their cause.

Well, if that's the case, almost all formal militaries throughout time and right on up through today are terrorists.
I suppose you could make the argument that all armies have, at some point or another, been terrorist, but I really don't see how all of them are currently terrorist.

I never said all of them, I said almost all. Regardless, I think we agree on most of the topics, but disagree only as to the extent of each point.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by erislover
Originally posted by Nietzsche for the State Department

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

So they are less specific than I was. Ok.
They don't seem to ever mention how many times a person or persons needs to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, one can safely assume, once is probably all you need.
According to the State Department, yep. Are you agreeing with them?

I don't think it really matters if I agree with them or not, but just for the sake of argument, yes, I agree with their definition. I'm not sure what to call September 11th if it was Al Queda's first attack (based on your definition).


And I'm not sure you did much to help the OP find a destinction between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist.
If you say it's okay to use terrorist tactics, then how can one distinguish between the two?
You say chocolate an vanilaa are two flavors of ice cream, how can you distinguish between the two?

I clarified how I think the two are distinguished in my first post to One Cell.

I did not place any moral value to either freedom fighting or terrorism. I did not include morality in the definitions. Morality has nothing to do with either, IMO, if we are looking for objective definitions.

I don't think there are any strightforward "objective" definitions. I think this is going to be a case by case situation every time.


And I'm only guessing here, but I think some folks in OKC would find the term terrorist very fitting for Mr. McVeigh. In fact, he and his actions seem to fit perfectly into the State Department's definition.
Well, then the state department can call him a terrorist. And I will then sit on the fence and say, "But yeah, Mr State Department, the hiroshima bombing was terrorism too!"

Does the government now declare war on itself?

Good question. I wondered the same thing myself. Or what would happen if the US government came across Israeli or Saudi Arabian terrorists. Wouldn't that be a doozy of a dilemma.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Monty
I'll help you out here: NONE. Therefore the United States was not at war and whatever actions bin Laden and his cohorts took were terrorism, not hostile military actions between nations.
Yes, that's my view too - that acts of war can only be committed between nations. (I was afraid that, given the sentiment in the OP, some people might disagree.) Anything else is terrorism (but could also be considered freedom fighting according to my criteria, which bin Laden and his cohorts did not meet in this case).

Originally posted by Dave Stewart
How do you "turn terrorist"?
Why is it not possible to "turn terrorist"? If you start resorting to terrorist acts when you previously didn't?

[erislover]

Originally posted by Nietzsche
Good question. I wondered the same thing myself. Or what would happen if the US government came across Israeli or Saudi Arabian terrorists. Wouldn't that be a doozy of a dilemma.
Not if they properly defined terrorism.

[JDM]

Here is a link to an article about this subject, from the New York Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14860

I have not as yet read the article closely, so I won't comment on it. The author:

Timothy Garton Ash is Director of the European Studies Centre at St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford

has several articles in the archive, and they seem well thought out.

On a related topic, here in the NYRB archive:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13811

about the Kosovo NATO action, Ash quotes NATO's commander of southern forces, Admiral James Ellis, as saying:

"We called this one absolutely wrong. It's one thing for politicians not to have told their publics that they privately judged this might be a long, difficult war. Politics means being economical with the truth. But what are we to conclude if they didn't even tell their own military?"

This is an area where I have to say that the Bush administration, and particularly Rumsfeld, has learned a good lesson from the past, albeit in circumstances where the possibility of a "long, difficult war" is considerably easier for the American populace to tolerate.

JDM

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Nietzsche
I don't ever recall arguing that this point of view was any less valid. I was merely trying to display how viewpoint can change what the attack is seen as. I think you just re-affirmed my original point. Did I miss your point here?
You say that it changes what the attack is seen as. Do you also say that it changes what the attack is?

And I was trying to show december that not all targets can be defined by who works there.
But december was arguing against that sort of idea. Remember, the way we got here was your statement implying that the attack was justified because of what the WTC represented. december then replied with what it represented to him.

Sounds like in some strange way, a truck bomb going off at a Northrop Grumman plant could be seen as a "freedom fighter" attack and not a "terrorist" attack, correct?
You have a good argument for why it wouldn't be a terrorist attack. However, just because someone isn't a terrorist, that doesn't mean that he's a freedom fighter.

I never said it did. I said it depends on how you look at it.
[/quote]
So how would the bomber be seen as a freedom fighter?

Actually, it does. Because now you're calling into question the validity of their aims.
No, I'm not callling into question the validity of their aims. I'm calling into question the validity of their methodfs. One needn't have an opinion on whhether Northen Ireland should be part of the UK to say that putting bombs in churches is not justified.