Distinction between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter

[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?

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

[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.

They state the following definitions:

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

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

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

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.