Freedom Fighter or Terrorist. Any difference?

[Nintii]

@ Ghogiel ... there were plenty of bombings against exclusive civilian targets, like car bombs in the busy

city streets of Johannesburg, where NO military personnel were present, including a bomb blast in a Club

and many other soft targets.

 

This is the nature of true terrorism ... scare the populace.

A military invasion or activity is exactly that ... military.

When a government does it to it's own people it's called oppression by a dictatorship.

When a government does it to another nation against it's will it's called war.

 

The ANC or more specificially "Umkonto we sizwe" the military wing of the ANC or "MK" as they were known

stood no chance whatsoever against the SADF so they attacked civilians.

All races including their own were killed by their cowardly bombings.

If a resident of the Townships went to the city to shop on a day they told people not to go, they would search

their bags on re-entering the township and heaven forbid the person did not have a kitchen cleaning chemical

because they would force them to drink it.

Furthermore the hundreds of "necklacing" - putting a tyre filled with petrol - around their own peoples necks

and setting fire to them, had NO military points in it either.

They were just innocents.

 

This is terrorism.

[WarRatsG]

In some places, the terrorist is the new heretic.

I heard a story that the US government tried around 20 times to create 1 catch-all definition of terrorism, only they couldn't because they would have been guilty themselves every time. Can't verify how true that is though

[kelticpete]

I read that basically most governments and other "powers that be" don't want to define "terrorist" because not having it defined makes sure it is a broad brush able to be used as propaganda.

 

my definition of a terrorist, because I am awesome, smart, and OCD: "one who commits acts of terrorism" :smile:

 

my definition of terrorism: "the deliberate targeting of non-governmental, non-military persons/assets/property with the intent to wreak fear/terror/death/harm in a way that makes the general population of that city/area/country fearful."

 

for example, on the TV show continuum, liber8t was called terrorists when they blew up the building where the government was housed because the loss of life was so great and so many civilians died. but if you blow up a government building, that is not really terrorism in my book. that is warfare. brutal. but warfare. war is about bringing down the leadership/military/structure of a political entity. fighting the "powers that be" to attack the assest of the "powers that be" is not terrorism. to randomly kill citizens, knock down business buildings, malls, schools, hospitals, that is terrorism. kidnapping civilians is terrorism. kidnapping a diplomat is not.

 

so here is the deal though. when fighting a war against the powers that be....what is the line between civilian and government? what about those sympathetic to government? what about the families of those that work for the government? it is easy to say that a diplomat and a soldier are good targets and that an apolitical shoe shine boy is a civilian target but what about the people in the middle? that is when "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" gets grey. history is written by victors and by those in power.

Edited February 15, 2014 by kelticpete

[WarRatsG]

In my book, terrorism does not necessarily require any killing or destruction. At its most basic level I'd define it as the use of fear to attain your goals.
This basically makes 50-90% of the world's population terrorists.

 

This could be narrowed down to political goals. Now it's only every government, advertiser and several (but not all) religious organisations.

 

Everyone is afraid of war. Any military will instill fear in it's enemies, otherwise it's not a very good military. As such, any fighter - be it for freedom, money or power - will inadvertently create fear and can thus be described as a terrorist.

 

So I suppose all freedom fighters are terrorists. But then, so are the ones they fight against.

[Maharg67]

Terrorists are those who attack civilian targets, who create terror amongst those who are not involved directly in any struggle.

 

True freedom fighters fight only actual oppressive forces such as those of a dictator or invading armies.

 

The line between the two is very thin and easily crossed over; I am sure that many terrorist groups started out as true freedom fighters but, for various reasons such as desperation or corruption, changed their nature.

 

PS: One people's freedom fighters are another people's terrorists.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Maharg67

[AfroGamerNinja]

Freedom is a goal. Terrorism is a way to achieve a goal. Make of that what you want.

[HeyYou]

When has terrorism ever achieved its goal?

[Ghogiel]

When has terrorism ever achieved its goal?

If attacks on civilian targets is considered terrorism... ending the war in the pacific by way of nuking 2 cities full of civilians for one.

[Harbringe]

 

When has terrorism ever achieved its goal?

If attacks on civilian targets is considered terrorism... ending the war in the pacific by way of nuking 2 cities full of civilians for one.

 

 

wow that not only answers what it can achieve but gives reason as to why it continues , rather startling realization

[RGMage2]

 

When has terrorism ever achieved its goal?

If attacks on civilian targets is considered terrorism... ending the war in the pacific by way of nuking 2 cities full of civilians for one.

 

kudos for speaking truth.