Distinction between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter

Great Debates
21

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?

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?

22

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.”)

23

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).
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. 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.

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.

24

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. :wink:

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

25

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.

26

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”?

27

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.

28

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:

…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.

29

One Cell

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”.

I believe that cmkeller meant his statement to read “freedom fighters only attack military targets”.

I believe that referring to those as “terrorism” was misguided and only served to dilute the word.

I think that it is quite clear that there was absolutely nothing “collateral” about the 5000 deaths.

Erislover

Their struggle against the NA is not what gets them called “terrorists”.

Nietzsche

It wasn"t attacked for “representing” a potential threat, it was attacked for being a potential threat.

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
© which the perpertrator had no right to interfere with

30

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.

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?

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?

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

31

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.
© 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).

32

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:

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.

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.

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.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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 :wink:

36

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.

37

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.

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.

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…

38

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.

39

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…

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.

40

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 :slight_smile:

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