# What's The Difference Between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 1, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774 "2013-01-01T20:56:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/81 "2013-01-04T17:14:34Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > When the U.S. killed Indians because we wanted their land, wasn’t that terrorism? No, that was genocide. They weren’t being scared off, they were being killed off. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/82 "2013-01-04T17:29:24Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > The Japanese would have been incorrect. You mean they were wrong to have civilians in Hiroshima. No, I mean if the Japanese won the war and labelled Truman a terrorist for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their doing so would erroneous, because the bombings were not terrorist acts. > [@pchaos](#): > > All I’m doing is asking you to look at that specific situation. Certainly. I have looked at it (the dropping of atomic bombs), and it was not terrorism. > [@pchaos](#): > > When the U.S. killed Indians because we wanted their land, wasn’t that terrorism? No. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/83 "2013-01-04T17:35:29Z")
A bumper sticker I saw: Terrorist. It’s what the large army calls the small army. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/84 "2013-01-04T18:17:59Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > A terrorist uses terror attacks against civilians to force policy changes. Civilians aren’t collateral damage, they are the target. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Certainly. I have looked at it (the dropping of atomic bombs), and it was not terrorism. You are contradicting yourself. Are you positing that the dropping of the atomic bombs, or the fire bombing of Tokyo were **not** intented to errm… ‘break the will to resist’? The term, at around the outbreak of war, for those kind of bombings (as opposed to Tactical Bombing) was actually _Terror Bombing_. That they started using the term Strategic Bombing, when the allies started doing it, doesn’t detract from its purpose..to instill terror and break the will to fight among the civilian population. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/85 "2013-01-04T18:30:16Z")
I’m not sure what atomic bombs he is referring to, but it’s worth noting that WWII-era strategic bombing policy is vastly different from what we have today. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/86 "2013-01-04T19:24:43Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > I’m not sure what atomic bombs he is referring to, but it’s worth noting that WWII-era strategic bombing policy is vastly different from what we have today. I was responding to post 73 by **pchaos** , wherein he or she remarked: > [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not ignoring what people have said. I have read it all. I’m just summarizing. It’s okay to kill a few civilians, just not too many. It’s okay to kill a few civilians at Hiroshima as long as you win the war. If you kill too many civilians you will be considered a terrorist. Agree that modern bombing, such as drone strikes, has little in common with strategic bombing. > [@Latro](#): > > You are contradicting yourself. > Are you positing that the dropping of the atomic bombs, or the fire bombing of Tokyo were not intented to errm… ‘break the will to resist’? > > The term, at around the outbreak of war, for those kind of bombings (as opposed to Tactical Bombing) was actually\* Terror Bombing\*. > > That they started using the term Strategic Bombing, when the allies started doing it, doesn’t detract from its purpose..to instill terror and break the will to fight among the civilian population. I disagree. I wrote: A terrorist uses terror attacks against civilians to force policy changes. Key part: A terrorist uses **terror attacks** against civilians to force policy changes. Breaking enemy morale was one aim. I stated that in post 53. Bombing enemy cities _during a legitimate conventional war effort_ is not a terror attack. I gave the Charles Tilly definition of terror in post 66, here it is again: “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime.” The Tokyo bombings, and the atomic bombings: 1. Were not asymmetrical; it was a war of state against state. 2. Were not means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime; bombing is a legitimate part of warfare. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/87 "2013-01-05T00:40:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Untrue. Look at the [Schweinfurt=Regensburg mission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt%E2%80%93Regensburg_mission) for one of many strategic bombing missions carried out to destroy German industry. I’m sorry, but it is true. As I said the USAAC initially had great faith in precision bombing but quickly found in practice that actual precision wasn’t possible with the technology of the time. The intended target would be a specific factory or such, but it was clear to all that any degree of accuracy wasn’t happening and in fact most of the bombs were falling wide of the intended target and just hitting the city. > [@](#): > > Is that not precisely what I said? No, it’s not. You’re pretending that weakening German morale didn’t mean explicitly trying to kill civilians. I’ll bold the part of the quote that you seem to want to ignore in your own bolding: > [@](#): > > The Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government’s Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace **through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants**. > [@](#): > > Yes, see the [firebombing of Tokyo.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing_of_Tokyo) This isn’t terrorism, however, it’s a distasteful military tactic with a military aim: ending the war in the Pacific. I never said it was or wasn’t terrorism, just that by your own attempt to define terrorism would clearly make this terrorism; the tactic was to set as many Japanese civilians as possible on fire. There was no legitimate military target that these civilians were unfortunate collateral damage of, they were the target. > [@](#): > > The key word being terror. The Charles Tilly definition of which is “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime.” War is not terror. I’d suggest you either don’t understand the meaning of the word war or don’t understand the meaning of the word terror. The statement that war is not terror is absurd on its face; it’s precisely what it is. War may not be terrorism, but it is clearly the application of terror upon the enemy. What do you imagine breaking the morale of the enemy implies? > [@](#): > > That’s a side effect of a massive build-up in warheads, not a strategy in itself. Patently untrue. Someone didn’t suddenly come up with the idea of nuking enemy cities because so many nuclear weapons had been built; nuking enemy cities was the first and primary role of nuclear weapons. Total war means the deliberate targeting and bombing of enemy cities to kill the civilians in them. That was what was done in WW2, that was what was done both time nuclear weapons have been used in war, and that was what they were going to do if the Cold War had gone hot. The idea of deliberately targeting enemy cities and civilians as the logical end of total war predates nuclear weapons and WW2, particularly influential was [Giulio Douhet’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet) _Command of the Air_ which he wrote in 1921. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/88 "2013-01-05T00:52:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > There is a difference between killing civilians as collateral damage in the imprecise world of open warfare, and killing civilians intentionally, or even exclusively, as a political tactic. Which makes the strategic bombing in WW2 terrorism under your definition; killing civilians intentionally was precisely what was done. Again, I am not saying strategic bombing in WW2 was terrorism, I’m saying your definition of terrorism isn’t particularly useful. And again, before you try to duck behind ‘political tactic’, as von Clausewitz wrote in one of the most influential books on war, war is the continuation of politics with the intermingling of other means. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/89 "2013-01-05T01:43:28Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I’m sorry, but it is true. As I said the USAAC initially had great faith in precision bombing but quickly found in practice that actual precision wasn’t possible with the technology of the time. The intended target would be a specific factory or such, but it was clear to all that any degree of accuracy wasn’t happening and in fact most of the bombs were falling wide of the intended target and just hitting the city. Well, are we talking intent, or results? > [@Dissonance](#): > > No, it’s not. You’re pretending that weakening German morale didn’t mean explicitly trying to kill civilians. I’ll bold the part of the quote that you seem to want to ignore in your own bolding: Pretending? Hardly. Of course bombing cities meant killing civilians. That’s not disputed. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I never said it was or wasn’t terrorism, just that by your own attempt to define terrorism would clearly make this terrorism; the tactic was to set as many Japanese civilians as possible on fire. There was no legitimate military target that these civilians were unfortunate collateral damage of, they were the target. Only if you make “terror” mean “killing”. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I’d suggest you either don’t understand the meaning of the word war or don’t understand the meaning of the word terror. The statement that war is not terror is absurd on its face; it’s precisely what it is. War may not be terrorism, but it is clearly the application of terror upon the enemy. What do you imagine breaking the morale of the enemy implies? I cited and use the definition of terror coined by the political scientist, [Charles Tilly.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilly) What definition are you working from? > [@Dissonance](#): > > Patently untrue. Someone didn’t suddenly come up with the idea of nuking enemy cities because so many nuclear weapons had been built; nuking enemy cities was the first and primary role of nuclear weapons. That’s not what I claimed, sir (or ma’am). It was pointed out that Cold War military stockpiles were intended to prevent the enemy from counterattacking, rather than simply to wipe out a maximum number of civilians. You replied that due to multiple warheads being assigned to targets, that the effect would be a strike on each city in the targeted nation. I’m saying that that doesn’t represent a shift in strategy, it’s what happens when you have tens of thousands of warheads assigned to counterforce targets. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Which makes the strategic bombing in WW2 terrorism under your definition; killing civilians intentionally was precisely what was done. Not if they aren’t terror attacks. See post 86. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I’m saying your definition of terrorism isn’t particularly useful. You’ve made it clear that this is your view. This is because you read “the systematic use of terror as a means of political coercion”, and inserted your own definition of terror. I hope that you see that this is where the disagreement lies. Care to supply a rival definition? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/90 "2013-01-05T01:48:23Z")
They day I learned what roux was, I asked the chef what the difference between a sauce and a gravy was. He said, “About $10 a plate” ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/91 "2013-01-05T07:33:38Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > You are splitting hairs. Whoever said that war is hell…was on point. In every war that has ever been waged, civilians have died as part of the “collateral damage.” From the discussion from above, it looks like the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist is that a Freedom Fighter kills fewer civilians. > > Is that the only difference? You accuse me of splitting hairs, and then go off rambling about what Sherman or whotheever said war was hell. If you can’t tell the difference between ‘splitting hairs’ and what I, or anybody else said, then I don’t know what you are even looking for in this thread, and may want to pursue your argument further in GD or the Pit. Then, you start cackling about everybody dying from ‘collateral damage.’ Do you even have a point, or are you just not even reading the other posts before you start trying to lecture people? You derived your difference from your own preconceptions and not from the ‘discussion above.’ ---
**Author:** ![metalimpactss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@metalimpactss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/metalimpactss)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/92 "2013-01-05T07:46:59Z")
[“Metal Impacts is a leading Manufacturers & Suppliers of Mobile Compactor, Mobile Compactors Racks, Heavy Duty Pallet Racks, Heavy Duty Rack and Compactors Racks in Bangalore, India.”](http://www.metalimpacts.in/mobile.php) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/93 "2013-01-05T07:50:43Z")
Spam reported. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/94 "2013-01-05T17:10:16Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, are we talking intent, or results? Both, obviously. > [@](#): > > Pretending? Hardly. Of course bombing cities meant killing civilians. That’s not disputed. Then why do you continue to dispute it? You seem to want to pass off killing civilians as collateral effects of the strategic bombing campaign when killing civilians was in fact the specific intent. They were not collateral damage, they were the target. > [@](#): > > Only if you make “terror” mean “killing”. Huh? Your attempt to define terrorism is deliberately killing civilians, which is precisely what strategic bombing was. > [@](#): > > I cited and use the definition of terror coined by the political scientist, [Charles Tilly.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilly) What definition are you working from? The one the rest of the world uses. Terror has been part and parcel of war since the dawn of time; it’s absurd to think otherwise. Breaking an enemy’s morale and shock effect on the field of battle is caused by spreading terror in the enemy ranks. I’d also question if your definition of terror as per Charles Tilly is not in fact his definition of terror **ism** , not terror. > [@](#): > > That’s not what I claimed, sir (or ma’am). It was pointed out that Cold War military stockpiles were intended to prevent the enemy from counterattacking, rather than simply to wipe out a maximum number of civilians. You replied that due to multiple warheads being assigned to targets, that the effect would be a strike on each city in the targeted nation. I’m saying that that doesn’t represent a shift in strategy, it’s what happens when you have tens of thousands of warheads assigned to counterforce targets. Which is complete, unmitigated nonsense. The stockpiles of nuclear weapons were intended from the start to wipe out the maximum number of enemy civilians. The destruction of every city in the US, Western and Eastern Europe, the USSR and China was not going to be a side effect of tens of thousands of warheads assigned to counterforce targets. The cities themselves were the targets, pretending otherwise borders on the delusional. What exactly were the nuclear counterforce targets of the US nuclear arsenal from 1945-49 when it was the only nation on earth with the bomb? Had WW3 happened in 1947 I can assure you the lack of a counterforce target wouldn’t have prevented the US from dropping an atomic bomb on Moscow. I give you [Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay), CiC SAC and the architect of the firebombing of Japan’s view on the matter: > [@](#): > > In 1949, LeMay was first to propose that a nuclear war be conducted by delivering the nuclear arsenal in a single overwhelming blow, going as far as “killing a nation”. > [@](#): > > Not if they aren’t terror attacks. See post 86. They most certainly are; you are again trying to act as if breaking an enemy’s civilian morale by bombing them doesn’t mean what it says on the tin; the bombs are being dropped on enemy cities for the explicit purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. There is no military target that they are collateral damage to; they themselves are the target. As **Latro** has said, the term for this at the outbreak of the war actually _was_ Terror Bombing. > [@](#): > > You’ve made it clear that this is your view. This is because you read “the systematic use of terror as a means of political coercion”, and inserted your own definition of terror. I hope that you see that this is where the disagreement lies. This is simply not true, I am using the conventional definition of the word terror. You on the other hand are using the words terror and terrorism interchangeably. So we’re on the same page and it’s clear that I’m not inventing my own meaning of the word “[terror](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terror)”: > [@](#): > > ter•ror [ter-er] Show IPA > noun > > 1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror. > > 2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers. > > 3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France. > > 4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism. > > 5. Informal. a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant. > [@](#): > > Care to supply a rival definition? I’ve already provided my take on the difference between “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” in this thread; the choice of words is more an indication of the speakers support or disapproval of a group more than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/95 "2013-01-05T20:06:03Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Correct, intent matters more than consequence in moral judgment. > > \ > > The key word being terror. The Charles Tilly definition of which is “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime.” War is not terror. If intent matters more than outcome in determining moral judgement and war is not terror, then clearly the events of 9/11/2001 were not terrorist acts, right? ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/96 "2013-01-06T18:05:30Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > A Freedom Fighter won the war and a Terrorist lost the war. Hmmm…I might be a bit harsh here, so is there a real difference besides who won. Whoever comes up with these quotes is a massive troll. I’m frankly astonished by people who deliberately refuse to acknowledge the difference, or who try to eliminate the moral difference between legitimate and unlawful forces. The Geneva Convention spells out the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants pretty clearly. I’m always stunned by the number of people who talk about what should and should not constitute a war crime, but have never actually bothered to read it. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/97 "2013-01-06T19:16:53Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > …The Geneva Convention spells out the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants pretty clearly. I’m always stunned by the number of people who talk about what should and should not constitute a war crime, but have never actually bothered to read it. “Lawful combatants” has almost nothing at all to do with “terrorism”. “War crimes” have even less, since most of the acts that most of us would agree are terrorist are not done as a part of a declared war, nor to they necessarily involve either governments or military forces. And it’s not simply “people” who talk about these things, it’s governments, which have a vested interest in obfuscating what does or doesn’t constitute terrorism. As I mentioned upthread, the US government insisted that the truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon was a terrorist act, though is was clearly and specifically aimed at an exclusively military target. Though, again, the US hadn’t declared war on Lebanon or vice versa, and the truck bomber (probably) wasn’t working under the direct orders of a government nor was he a member of the military. These things are not nearly so cut and dried as you imagine them to be. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/98 "2013-01-06T22:41:43Z")
A “freedom fighter” is someone on the winning side of a war. A “terrorist” is someone who is on the losing side. Consider the (Israeli) Menachem Begin…in the war of Israeli Independence, he was a terrorist (he headed the “Stern” gang)-which had participated in several bombings , among them the King David Hotel. Now, he is remembered as a freedom fighter. Yasir Arafat was on the losing side…hence, he was a terrorist. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/99 "2013-01-07T04:21:40Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Then why do you continue to dispute it? You seem to want to pass off killing civilians as collateral effects of the strategic bombing campaign when killing civilians was in fact the specific intent. They were not collateral damage, they were the target. They were both, to different missions at different times. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Huh? Your attempt to define terrorism is deliberately killing civilians, which is precisely what strategic bombing was. I think I see part of the disagreement. I gave Tilly’s definition of terror in post 66, in a reply to you. However, in posts 76 and 77 I wrote: > [@Human Action](#): > > A terrorist uses terror attacks against civilians to force policy changes. Civilians aren’t collateral damage, they are the target. > [@Human Action](#): > > There is a difference between killing civilians as collateral damage in the imprecise world of open warfare, and killing civilians intentionally, or even exclusively, as a political tactic. These were in replies to **pchaos** , who asserted that: > [@pchaos](#): > > It’s okay to kill a few civilians, just not too many. It’s okay to kill a few civilians at Hiroshima as long as you win the war. If you kill too many civilians you will be considered a terrorist. So, **pchaos** claimed that a label of terrorism was a function of losing a war, and killing “too many” civilians. I differed with that take, but my definition of terrorism was never just “deliberately killing civilians.” I gave it in post 50: “the systematic use of terror as a means of political coercion.” In post 66 I further defined the “terror” part of “use of terror”, per Charles Tilly: “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime”. Thus, my definition of terrorism that you so disagree with was never “deliberately killing civilians.” > [@Dissonance](#): > > I’d also question if your definition of terror as per Charles Tilly is not in fact his definition of terror **ism** , not terror. It’s terror, in the sense of terror **ism.** Here’s the context, from [_Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists_](http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~pmclean/mcleanp_01_920_290_01_tilly_terrorism.pdf), Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium. > [@Charles Tilly](#): > > The word terror points to a widely recurrent but imprecisely bounded political strategy. We can reasonably define that strategy as \*asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime. \* So, a definition of what the “terror” in terrorism means. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Which is complete, unmitigated nonsense. The stockpiles of nuclear weapons were intended from the start to wipe out the maximum number of enemy civilians. The destruction of every city in the US, Western and Eastern Europe, the USSR and China was not going to be a side effect of tens of thousands of warheads assigned to counterforce targets. This is a digression of a digression, so I’ll plead _nolo contendere_. If you’re mistaken, I’m sure another poster will chime in. If not, I concede. > [@Dissonance](#): > > This is simply not true, I am using the conventional definition of the word terror. You on the other hand are using the words terror and terrorism interchangeably. Which is the issue, terrorism doesn’t just mean use of “acts that cause intense, sharp, overmastering fear”, nor is it any “violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion”. The connotation of terrorism, the political tactic, is much more specific. Exhibiting a scary film isn’t terrorism, a person threatening their girlfriend isn’t terrorism, in the sense that is under discussion. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I’ve already provided my take on the difference between “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” in this thread; the choice of words is more an indication of the speakers support or disapproval of a group more than anything else. The problem with this is that the words aren’t opposites, they describe different things. **Malthus** conveyed this very well in post 37. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/100 "2013-01-07T05:21:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > If intent matters more than outcome in determining moral judgement and war is not terror, then clearly the events of 9/11/2001 were not terrorist acts, right? I have no idea what you mean, here, can you help me with a clarification? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774.md?page=6)