Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter

[SkepticLance]

What is the difference?

[john5746]

I would say tactics. When I hear freedom fighter, I picture rag tag rebels fighting soldiers. When I hear terrorists, I picture people killing or holding civilians hostage.

 

Terrorists can employ non-terrorist acts and armies can employ terrorist acts, so there is a big gray area, of course.

[Sisyphus]

Agree with that basic distinction, in theory. Iraq, of course, is one giant gray area. You've got a whole bunch of armed civilian groups, some of them killing soldiers, some of them killing each other, some killing unarmed supporters of various groups, and it's not at all clear who's doing what.

[Rev Blair]

Depends which side you are on. Even repressive extremists like bin Laden think they are fighting for freedom.

 

But, like George Carlin said, if firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?

[ParanoiA]

I would say tactics. When I hear freedom fighter, I picture rag tag rebels fighting soldiers. When I hear terrorists, I picture people killing or holding civilians hostage.

 

Terrorists can employ non-terrorist acts and armies can employ terrorist acts, so there is a big gray area, of course.

 

That sounds exactly right to me. And I'm not entirely sure there is a cause worth employing terrorism to achieve. I'm not sure there is a realistic scenario that would make it morally acceptable.

[D H]

I would say perception. The boundary between freedom fighter and terrorist is a bit fuzzy. The revolutionaries of the War of American Independence would be called terrorists today had the British won that war and kept their empire intact to this day. The French underground would similarly be labeled as a terrorist organization had Germany won World War II.

[Phi for All]

A freedom fighter is successful at the beginning of the fight, during the fight and after as well. They are successful even if they're losing, as long as they don't give up.

 

A terrorist is only successful if they can get their enemy to overreact in a huge way to relatively small but vivid acts of inhumanity.

[Pangloss]

What's wrong with saying that they are the same in terms of tactics, and that the difference is that the freedom fighter is the one I agree with and support, and the terrorist is the one I wish to destroy?

[YT2095]

Methodology.

[ParanoiA]

What's wrong with saying that they are the same in terms of tactics, and that the difference is that the freedom fighter is the one I agree with and support, and the terrorist is the one I wish to destroy?

 

Because they are not the same tactics. Terrorism seeks to focus on and invoke the psychology of terror by victimizing and assaulting the "innocent". They rationalize this by claiming there is no innocent. This way, they can kill "representatives" of the opponent without really fighting the opponent.

 

It would be like forfeiting a football game, only to tackle and thrash the cheerleaders of the other team, rationalizing that they're not innocent. It gives you the make believe boost you need to feel like you're actually fighting - when really you are a bottom feeding thug preying on the weak and relatively powerless.

 

A freedom fighter, disregarding Carlin's brilliant observation on the phrase, doesn't rationalize killing the weak and powerless, but rather fights the fighters of the opposing side. Now, they may use similar strategies as terrorists, but they focus and aim their attacks on the opposing forces.

 

I can agree or disagree with, and want to destroy or support a freedom fighter. I can never agree with a terrorist. His rationale is of no interest to me. Other than academically, as I'm interested in exploring the possibility of a scenario that would morally justify aiming specifically for civilians. I haven't discovered one yet.

[foodchain]

Because they are not the same tactics. Terrorism seeks to focus on and invoke the psychology of terror by victimizing and assaulting the "innocent". They rationalize this by claiming there is no innocent. This way, they can kill "representatives" of the opponent without really fighting the opponent.

 

It would be like forfeiting a football game, only to tackle and thrash the cheerleaders of the other team, rationalizing that they're not innocent. It gives you the make believe boost you need to feel like you're actually fighting - when really you are a bottom feeding thug preying on the weak and relatively powerless.

 

A freedom fighter, disregarding Carlin's brilliant observation on the phrase, doesn't rationalize killing the weak and powerless, but rather fights the fighters of the opposing side. Now, they may use similar strategies as terrorists, but they focus and aim their attacks on the opposing forces.

 

I can agree or disagree with, and want to destroy or support a freedom fighter. I can never agree with a terrorist. His rationale is of no interest to me. Other than academically, as I'm interested in exploring the possibility of a scenario that would morally justify aiming specifically for civilians. I haven't discovered one yet.

 

I think with terrorism in a modern sense such issues dwell from mainly poverty, prior history even in a short sense also being big, really big, and of course ignorance or lack of any education/worldview that is not particularly lacking in many places, extinct for the most part in others. This education also can be purely a moral one from combinations of various social influences like religion.

 

So for instance in an Iraqi prison a site you might read about could be recruitment of anti-coalition fighters that cannot read or right and basically only know a warped fashion of some religion and bitter hard poverty. Not to say that is what makes a terrorist, but in places like Afghanistan the culture was completely harmed in very deleterious ways by war in reference to the nation being more like a nation like Kuwait for instance. This is only a part of the puzzle though as with Iran and Saudi Arabia you can find plenty of reasons for wanting to label something terrorist in a modern sense, those nations not being anything like modern Afghanistan. This includes rhetoric of mass murder/genocide and various related incidents of extreme violence basically prompted by the same.

 

So in short terrorism would be an immensely large cultural creature, and why its exists I cant think of any other reason really save for religion, not that religion has any sort of a violent history or anything.

[Pangloss]

I guess that makes sense. I don't think I could support a "freedom fighter" who deemed it necessary to attack non-combatants.

 

And I agree that it's largely about poverty, or at least lack of opportunities.

[SkepticLance]

Most people would agree that the French resistance in WWII were freedom fighters. They are attacking an invading army that had set up a puppet government to justify their acts. The Nazis were repressive and were stealing the right of the French citizenry to be free.

 

Most people would agree that Al Qaeda at the World Trade Centre were terrorists. They attacked a whole lot of innocent people who had never harmed them.

 

However, what about the insurgents in Iraq? They believe they are fighting an invading army that has set up a puppet government. They believe they are fighting a threat to their own freedom.

[ParanoiA]

However, what about the insurgents in Iraq? They believe they are fighting an invading army that has set up a puppet government. They believe they are fighting a threat to their own freedom.

 

I see them as freedom fighters. I suppose there's some questionable practices concerning hiding amongst civilians and such, but as far as I know they aren't targeting these civilians. They are targeting the US forces.

 

There is some terrorism there, obviously, with the bombing of public places and so forth. But I think I'm on fairly safe ground to say they are mostly freedom fighters.

[CDarwin]

I don't even know that there can be such a thing as a terrorist. Terrorism is a tactic and anyone can use it, be they ragtag guerrillas or modern nation-states. Osama bin Laden is a leader of an extremely violent international militant movement which relies heavily on terrorism. They also use other tactics, though, so calling them "terrorists" seems to make up a category of fighter which is wrought with difficulty.

[Pangloss]

"Freedom fighter" is an equally abusable word. We're just (rather pointlessly) discussing politically correct semantics here, IMO.

[CDarwin]

"Freedom fighter" is an equally abusable word. We're just (rather pointlessly) discussing politically correct semantics here, IMO.

 

Well, a freedom fighter can be a 'terrorist,' in that they can (and often do) use terrorism to achieve goals that are looked upon as noble.

[ParanoiA]

Would you call someone who killed someone else in self defense, a murderer? A killer?

 

That's how I see this semantics battle between terrorist and freedom fighter. Either can employ the other. When they target civilians, it's a terrorist attack. When they target enemy forces, it's a fight.

 

How does a freedom fighter fight civilians? Please, that's like saying I got in a fight with a 3 year old when I whipped his ass. So, a fighter would presumably fight other fighters - hence enemy forces, not civilians.

 

A terrorist isn't fighting anyone, they are terrorizing civilians, presumably vulnerable and/or unarmed and unaware.

 

So I think it's somewhat self explanatory in the words themselves. Call it semantics if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.

[Pangloss]

Well, a freedom fighter can be a 'terrorist,' in that they can (and often do) use terrorism to achieve goals that are looked upon as noble.

 

But apparently we've established that a "freedom fighter" can also be an advocate of religious zealotry and fascist oppression.

 

One man's "freedom" is another man's (or woman's) "slavery".

[Mr Skeptic]

You might say that freedom fighters are a subset of terrorists, but not the other way around. The terrorist may be trying to achieve any objective, whereas the freedom fighter is fighting for freedom of someone from someone. However, I'd expect some higher standards of acceptable tactics for a freedom fighter than a terrorist.

[iNow]

Would you call someone who killed someone else in self defense, a murderer? A killer?

 

That's how I see this semantics battle between terrorist and freedom fighter. Either can employ the other. When they target civilians, it's a terrorist attack. When they target enemy forces, it's a fight.

 

How does a freedom fighter fight civilians? Please, that's like saying I got in a fight with a 3 year old when I whipped his ass. So, a fighter would presumably fight other fighters - hence enemy forces, not civilians.

 

A terrorist isn't fighting anyone, they are terrorizing civilians, presumably vulnerable and/or unarmed and unaware.

 

So I think it's somewhat self explanatory in the words themselves. Call it semantics if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.

 

Another great post, ParanoiA. I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread's primary question quite a lot. Thank you. I quite agree with your distinctions and definitions, ones which I wasn't personally sure about when first reading the OP.

[CDarwin]

Governments can and do use terror, to control their own populations, to disrupt other countries, and to achieve ideological aims. Those governments also use conventional armies to achieve their aims in different circumstances. Are those governments "terrorists"? The whole definition just seems useless. Terrorism is a very dirty, very nasty way of fighting asymmetrical war that anyone can resort to. The point is that the same organizations, indeed the same people, can use terrorism one day and light infantry tactics the next, all as part of a single effort.

Edited June 27, 2008 by CDarwin

[Rev Blair]

Ah, where to start? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Dresden? Vietnam? Cambodia? The Gulf War? The Iraq Attack? Dresden is good. Read Vonnegut, he'll explain it to you. He was there and it crept right into his story while he was using fiction to tell the truth.

 

Dresden is also good because there is no doubt that the war against Germany had an awful lot to do with freedom. Still didn't keep us from firebombing a city full of civilians. Bombed them all to freedom. Some of them, like Vonnegut, were our own people...POWs we knew were there. Jesus we're ugly monkeys.

[ParanoiA]

Governments can and do use terror, to control their own populations, to disrupt other countries, and to achieve ideological aims. Those governments also use conventional armies to achieve their aims in different circumstances. Are those governments "terrorists"? The whole definition just seems useless. Terrorism is a very dirty, very nasty way of fighting asymmetrical war that anyone can resort to. The point is that the same organizations, indeed the same people, can use terrorism one day and light infantry tactics the next, all as part of a single effort.

 

Maybe we call them freedom terrorists? Or fighting terrorists?. What do you call a guy who kills 50 people, but saves 300 people? Is he a killer? A hero?

 

Either way, that dilemma doesn't diminish the word's individual meaning. They are still two distinct ideas, with incidental conflicting morals. Is there a legitimate rationale for targeting civilians for terror? I've not heard of one. So, to me, any government engaged in attacking civilians becomes a terrorist government pretty damn quick.

[Pangloss]

Ah, where to start? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Dresden? Vietnam? Cambodia? The Gulf War? The Iraq Attack? Dresden is good. Read Vonnegut, he'll explain it to you. He was there and it crept right into his story while he was using fiction to tell the truth.

 

Dresden is also good because there is no doubt that the war against Germany had an awful lot to do with freedom. Still didn't keep us from firebombing a city full of civilians. Bombed them all to freedom. Some of them, like Vonnegut, were our own people...POWs we knew were there. Jesus we're ugly monkeys.

 

Sure. But two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward. Given the overall course of humanity, mostly peaceful but rarely free, I'll take the last century of global violence and conflict.