Distinction between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter

Great Debates
1

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.

2

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

3

It depends-if what they’re doing benefits the US, they’re “freedom fighters”.

4

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.

5

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

6

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.

7

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?

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.

Yes and these were cases of freedom fighting, in my opinion.

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.

8

Is this a typo? (What country do you live in?

9

France.

10

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

“Icon”? Puh-lease. Here’s the facts: They were office buildings full of civilians.

Attacking them is terrorism.

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.

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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. :slight_smile:

15

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. :slight_smile:

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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.”

:wink:

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.

20

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”?