Are Freedom Fighter, Terrorists

[Ramma]

Whilst trying to complete a few of my assignments some previous professors/authors have describes some resistance groups as terrorists groups.

To be specific one author writes that the East Timorese group FALINTIL/ FRETLIN was/is a terrorists groups.

Altho during my time on operations I have worked with these groups helping them to achieve thier independence from indonesia.

Does being a freedom fighter/ resistance group make you a terrorist group??

If anyone has any references for me to look at that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advanced

Ramma

[Greenhat]

Does being a freedom fighter/ resistance group make you a terrorist group??

No.

But it doesn't mean you aren't one either.

Terrorist groups target civilians and use terror tactics.

You can be a freedom fighter/resistance group and not do that. You can also say you are fighting for freedom and do exactly that.

[NightLandNav]

The increasing frequency in which I encounter individuals asserting incorrectly that those using clear terror tactics are NOT "terrorists", rather they are "freedom fighters", is admittedly surprising despite my efforts not to underestimate general stupidity.

When it's compared to the events leading up to Declaration of Independence (Boston Massacre, Bunker Hill, Lexington & Concord)...that's when it's pushing the envelope for my "better angels".

The differences, as GH pointed out, are simple enough. Perhaps the simplicity is the confusing part for some, as this seems to belie the significant importance in those differences.

[seapig173]

" one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is a saying that has been around for a while and demonstrates the different perspectives of people as they look at the same thing. An established government that is recognized even if you dont like it or agree with its policies will label what others consider a group of freedom fighters a terrorist group. A good example on those perspectives is the Contras in Nicaragua the US provided them training and arms, President Regan called them freedom fighters, while the Nicaraguan government and a majority of the world labeled them Terrorists. Some times those labels change over time and reviewed in a historical perspective.

[NightLandNav]

"Perspective" absolutely applies in general terms, but specific actions are not so easily rationalised.

The indiscriminate kidnapping of a civilian, then releasing the recorded beheading for shock value...is terrorism, I don't care who does it.

As previously stated, being a "freedom fighter" is not a free pass. However sincere the political objective, using terror tactics adds "terrorist" to the description label of those involved.

[CombatWombat]

If your side wins, you're a freedom fighter.

If you lose, you were a terrorist.

[Greenhat]

If your side wins, you're a freedom fighter.

If you lose, you were a terrorist.

Bullshit.

John Brown was a terrorist.
Border Ruffians were terrorists.

Opposite sides... both terrorists.

[HKUSP45]

Just a little historical perspective:

During a visit to the US in the 80s, Yassir Arafat was speaking at an American university. When, during the question-and-answer session afterwards, a student accused him of being a "terrorist", he responded with: "Yes, I am a terrorist, the same way George Washington was a terrorist."

In order for George Washington to have been considered a terrorist, he would have to have done, or been willing, to send a small cell to Britain, which would invade Cornwallis' private home while he was on the American continent, take his family hostage, strap them to barrels of black powder with a ready fuse, and threaten to kill them unless Her Majesty's government pulls all forces from the United States and recognizes its independence.

Anybody think he would have done that?

The deliberate targeting of uninvolved non-combatants is what separates "terrorists" and "freedom fighters".

HK

[Baildog]

I think perhaps the confusion stems not from the definition of "terrorist," but from the definition of "freedom fighter."

Freedom fighter - a person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, esp. in order to overthrow their government.

While that dictionary definition does not explicitly state it, "freedom fighter" has positive connotations attached to it, reminiscent of George Washington and similar revolutionaries (who, of course, were winners who got to write the history). And I think this is clouding the issue.

I would submit that "freedom fighter" is defined by goals, whereas "terrorist" is defined by tactics/actions, and therefore it is a false dychotomy...apples and oranges. You can quite easily fight for your freedom using terror as a tactic. Are you not then both? What exactly was Arafat fighting for, if not freedom? Are not the Chechens fighting for freedom/independence from Russia? Do they not fit the above definition of freedom fighter? But you won't often hear them termed freedom fighters. Why? Becuase they are acknowledged terrorists, which contradicts the unspoken positive connotation of freedom fighters.

You might say that Arafat was a freedom fighter the way George Washington was a freedom fighter, but you cannot say (as HKUSP45 accurately pointed out) that Washington was a terrorist.

[CombatWombat]

Bullshit.

John Brown was a terrorist.
Border Ruffians were terrorists.

Opposite sides... both terrorists.

And both of them lost. John Brown was captured and hung and the Border Ruffians lost when the Union defeated the Confederacy. What I am getting at is, the winners write the history to their choosing and decide on 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. If John Brown was successful in his desire to lead a victorious slave revolt instead of ending as a symbolic martyr of sorts, he would be remembered not as a maniac but as a visionary. Same acts with different outcomes lead to different 'histories'. Let me put it this way, if Sherman loses then he becomes the biggest war criminal and terrorist in the history of the Confederated States of America. If he wins, we name a tank after him.

My larger point is that this is really just a matter of semantics. At a practical level, I think it is only fruitful to consider who is a threat and who is not and how best to elimnate those threats. As to defining the nature of the threat in a socioeconomic or political sense, I find the exercise largely academic in nature and of little practical value, even if it is intellectually interesting. While this might appear to be a rather shortsighted, knuckledragging opinion, after hours of graduate study on this topic I can't seem to find any measurable operational value to defining terrorism. Crafting a definintion that depicts your enemy as a criminal may have propaganda value, but eventually even that fades as people begin to see through the caricatures we would make of our enemies.

Eventually this debate goes to extremes and we drag George Washington and Mao and Patton and Hitler and whoever into this and argure if they were terrorists or not. When you use violence, you're a terrorist to some extent. Yes, even I am, the US Army Infantryman. I drive around with high explosives and guns and threaten to kill anyone who doesn't do what I say. Granted, I think what I'm telling you to do (be nice and don't kill each other) is a pretty defensible position intellectually, but I'm still using force and intimidation rather than reason to get you to do it. Furthermore, I agree that reason isn't going to get the job done and I happily execute the mission of killing everyone who doesn't go along with the be nice plan while I try to get the fencesitters to see that the be nice plan is better than the get shot plan.

The idea that there are any 'legitimate' acts of war is crazy. I get the just war theory and I am no pacifist, but I also recognize that once you start killing people you're doing just that, killing people. In most every social code I can think of, we don't want to be killing each other (Thunderdome is a notiable exception) and any moralizing is moot until the killing stops. So, I say quit with the moralizing, gain a monopoly of force as quickly as possible using whatever means necessary, and once the killing is done, build a stable western-style democracy complete with Wal-Marts, cable TV, and unlimited trips to the salad bar. Then, after years of peace, the University of Absurdistan or wherever we went can have a conference on the nature of its struggle for nationhood and vote to recommend reparation payments to everybody we bombed.

As far as the 'deliberate' targeting of non-combatants go I think it is largely irrelevant to the dead non-combatant if he was a 'deliberate' or 'collateral' death. Dresden, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Baghdad, yadda yadda...all bombed to hell and back with significant civilian casulaties that were completely forseeable. The people in those cities were just as much victims of terror as the residents of NYC were on 9/11. Can you really make the killing of innocents in one scenario more acceptable than in the other? Both are abhorent, but both are necessary for their side to attempt to achieve victory.

[Greenhat]

Not in Kansas they didn't both lose.

[Greenhat]

The idea that there are any 'legitimate' acts of war is crazy.


If you really believe this and the rest of what you wrote, you need to find a new profession.

[NightLandNav]

...When you use violence, you're a terrorist to some extent. Yes, even I am, the US Army Infantryman. I drive around with high explosives and guns and threaten to kill anyone who doesn't do what I say.

No you're not, and no you didn't.

Yes you drove around with all systems hot, but "anyone"..."doesn't do what I say"? There were ROE, you were under fairly specific guidelines...based on tactical threat assessment. Your actions were neither indiscriminate or arbitrarily dictated.

...The idea that there are any 'legitimate' acts of war is crazy.

Already addressed.

As far as the 'deliberate' targeting of non-combatants go I think it is largely irrelevant to the dead non-combatant if he was a 'deliberate' or 'collateral' death. Dresden, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Baghdad, yadda yadda...all bombed to hell and back with significant civilian casulaties that were completely forseeable. The people in those cities were just as much victims of terror as the residents of NYC were on 9/11.

Now you're just talking crazy talk.

...Can you really make the killing of innocents in one scenario more acceptable than in the other? Both are abhorent, but both are necessary for their side to attempt to achieve victory.

Yes I, one of many, can. And no, both are not necessary to achieve victory.

Granted it is not as simple as Sesame Street's "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other" segments, but nevertheless, they are definitively not the same.

That said, your perspective is yours. Yes I am trying to persuade and convince you otherwise, but either way, respect of your experience is duly present.

[yojinbukai]

When you use violence, you're a terrorist to some extent. Yes, even I am, the US Army Infantryman. I drive around with high explosives and guns and threaten to kill anyone who doesn't do what I say.

The idea that there are any 'legitimate' acts of war is crazy.
.

That's the rub, right there. Terrorists are acting separately from their government or without overt governmental acknowledgment. They are trying to get some sort of gain through the use or threat of violence.

War, on the other hand, is exactly what it purports to be. Why did we bomb Hiroshima? Because the President was ready to end the freaking war once and for all. The war that we weren't officially in until they bombed Pearl. Why did we bomb Nagasaki? Because the Emperor didn't hear it the first time a nuclear device went off in his country.

War is two countries in all out fighting. Period. When war comes to America's doorstep again you'll see an entirely different public reaction than you get now with what media has, I believe, mislabeled as a war.

If you don't recognize the difference between a soldier and a terrorist, you should ask your school for a refund. Nothing personal, one grunt to another, but I just don't see where you're coming from.

Oh... last I checked, the warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't threatening anything other than to kill or capture insurgents. Similarly, your logic would lump police officers in with terrorists as well. That makes about as much sense as inviting Michael Jackson to a Cub Scout jamboree.

[The Corporate Guy]

No.

But it doesn't mean you aren't one either.



Bingo. One is a motivation/cause, the other describes a certain set of strategy/tactics.

[Marvin Blank]

You know, this is one of the main reasons I come here; To see debates on subjects like these by people with real world experiences, and not just a bunch of college students who've never left the country.

[magician]

You know, this is one of the main reasons I come here; To see debates on subjects like these by people with real world experiences, and not just a bunch of college students who've never left the country.

Me, too.

Especially when I see stuff like this:

That said, your perspective is yours. Yes I am trying to persuade and convince you otherwise, but either way, respect of your experience is duly present.

[CombatWombat]

OK, first off, nobody posting anything in this thread (at least the guys who've BTDT) is going to hurt my feelings or in some way call into question my patriotism or sense of duty. We're all big boys here and if I can't defend my opinions then they aren't worth a hell of a lot. So, no need to tippytoe around me, fire away. That said, I appreciate the demonstrated professionalism and respect exhibited around here. Frankly, it's a hell of a lot better than the reception I got at Georgetown when I made these arguments.

Let me try to get to the kernel of what I'm trying to say up front. Drawing distinctions between 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters' or whatever is an academic exercise that, in my opinion, distracts from the business of national security. At the end of the day, the only thing I think that matters is deciding if something is a threat or nonthreat and acting accordingly. The current Awakening Councils phenomenon is an example of this. One day these are terrorist Sunni militias, the next day they’re our partners in peace. I was in on a debriefing with some company and battalion commanders who were on the ground when the first of these councils started coming forward. There was tremendous pushback from some levels of command that “we can’t work with terrorists”. Luckily, some more forward thinking prevailed and support for this initiative occurred with some success. This could have failed, however, if our ideological principles and definitions trumped the truth on the ground.

It doesn’t matter if these guys are terrorists or not, but rather, are they useful to achieving my country’s ends. This isn’t a simple question as our support for unsavory allies in the past has backfired significantly. Still, we should be pragmatic in our decision making rather than using ideological notions of who is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I fear that our haste to label threats to our nation as ‘terrorists’ is more a propaganda device than a strategic vision and that it engenders a polarizing view of the world, rather than the shades of gray reality that it is.

NightLandNav pointed out that a dictated ROE and guidelines on my behavior during my tour legitimized my use of force and drew a distinction between myself and a terrorist. I would argue that my ROE and guidelines were based upon a deliberate decision making process to maximize the effectiveness of our military and not out of some desire to minimize pain and suffering born of our inherent humanity. Furthermore, my ROE is functionally no different than the guidance given in a fatwa issued by an Imam exhorting the killing of Americans but not of other Muslims. Both are restrictions on the use of force designed to improve the political position of one side of a conflict, particularly in a COIN fight.

Further, I still contend that the use of violence negates any sense of legitimacy in a conflict. I find it a contrivance to rally support to your side and sap it from your opponent. Perhaps if we were able to only act surgically and destroy those who actively threaten us I could be convinced of the legitimacy of violence. Maybe. But we all know that in reality, once the bullets start flying, innocents will die and many will suffer. Period. Again, I am not a pacifist nor do I reject the state sponsored use of violence. What I am trying to say is that we must be very, very cautious in our use of violence because we will always kill people we didn’t intend to kill and who bore us no ill will. No matter how hard I try, I cannot make an action resulting in the deaths of innocents out to be a legitimate, just action on the part of my country. Necessary, yes, but not morally right in any way.

Perhaps you view this as crazy talk, but I would challenge you to divorce yourself of your perspective as an American for a moment and examine our conduct in the past century and show me how our killing of innocents is fundamentally different than what our enemies, terrorist or not, have done. We may have tried to minimize it and they might have tried to maximize it, but innocent people still ended up dead. I have never heard a convincing argument that killing an innocent person is a legitimate act.

I still stand by my statement that the major difference between a soldier and terrorist is who ends up on the winning side. If we pull out of Iraq, the past few years will be remembered as the American Occupation and its eventual defeat at the hands of the Righteous Insurrection. Don’t believe me? Go check out some of the museums in downtown Saigon. This whole debate is about your point of view. If you can’t see that, then you will have a hard time ever doing a solid enemy analysis for an operation in today’s environment. What makes the enemy think he is right in opposing me, and how do I attack that motivation? How can I make him not want to even fight me in the first place? You can’t answer those questions by just applying a label. You may not be able to see how we can be thought of as terrorists, but the enemy sure can.

Of course I draw distinctions between myself and Al Qaeda, between my local cops and the Revolutionary Guard. Those distinctions, however, are based on specific evaluations of the relationship to me, their stated intentions and my opinions on those, and their methods. Blanket distinctions are less useful to me, and I would propose, to security professionals. My logic doesn’t lump anyone in with anybody else. I instead argue that you must look at adversaries as individuals and individual organizations with specific characteristics and desires, just as our country has specific characteristics and desires. Classifying them as terrorists or freedom fighters and making some sort of moral value judgment doesn’t do that and, in my view, polarizes things to an unworkable level.

I fight for my country for two reasons. Firstly, my mother, a South Vietnamese refugee, taught me what can happen when you and yours are on the losing end of a war. That won’t happen on my watch. The second is that I think that what the United States does with a monopoly of force is better than any other nation out there, and moreover, our support for free markets and free expression does more to prevent future conflicts than any other tactic. I’d like to fight myself out of a job, but that doesn’t seem likely these days.

[Greenhat]

NightLandNav pointed out that a dictated ROE and guidelines on my behavior during my tour legitimized my use of force and drew a distinction between myself and a terrorist. I would argue that my ROE and guidelines were based upon a deliberate decision making process to maximize the effectiveness of our military and not out of some desire to minimize pain and suffering born of our inherent humanity. Furthermore, my ROE is functionally no different than the guidance given in a fatwa issued by an Imam exhorting the killing of Americans but not of other Muslims. Both are restrictions on the use of force designed to improve the political position of one side of a conflict, particularly in a COIN fight.

Basic, simple difference. Your ROE is based on UCMJ and International Law. The fatwa is not. In front of an International Tribunal, following the fatwa holds no weight, following the ROE in order to comply with International law does.

Further, I still contend that the use of violence negates any sense of legitimacy in a conflict.

Take that reasoning to the extreme and you could claim that there is no legitimacy in any conflict. Violent or not has nothing to do with legitimacy (you are imposing a set of moral judgements while arguing against other moral judgements that are supported by the international community). Legitimacy is about the reason for the conflict. Violence is a method that may be resorted to in order to resolve the conflict.

I have never heard a convincing argument that killing an innocent person is a legitimate act.

How do you describe an innocent person?

In WWII, the reasoning by the allies for strikes against population centers had to do with two basic concepts, both of which were valid and arguably remain so today in wars between nation-states.

1. The government of a nation-state operates with the consent of the people of that nation-state (regardless of form of government) and if that government has chosen to go to war, it's population has given their consent (either actively or passively) and are thereby participants.

2. In addition, the war production facilities of a nation are legitimate military targets. In Japan, war production was dispersed in "cottage" industry form from the very start (pre-1931). In the case of Germany, because of strikes against war plants, the Germans decentralized their production facilities and made wide-spread sections of cities legitimate targets.

You can make the argument that despite those two reasons, strategic bombing in general was a failure, but that doesn't change the legitimacy of the attacks, nor the legitimacy of choosing those targets. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo were all legitimate military targets. So were Dusseldorf, Aachen, Hamburg, and Berlin.

You mentioned Hanoi, but the US bombers specifically avoided civilian areas, and even military targets that were too close to civilian areas, restricting strikes to targets considered clearly military. Were there some civilian casualties? Certainly. There are also people who die in car accidents everyday.

I still stand by my statement that the major difference between a soldier and terrorist is who ends up on the winning side. If we pull out of Iraq, the past few years will be remembered as the American Occupation and its eventual defeat at the hands of the Righteous Insurrection. Don’t believe me? Go check out some of the museums in downtown Saigon.

The museums in Saigon don't reflect how history remembers the Vietnam war or the participants, just how the government of Vietnam has painted it. That's like assuming that the position of abolitionists in New York or Massachusetts after the hanging of John Brown reflected how he would go down in history. They didn't. Btw, John Brown got what he fought for. Abolition. He won. He's still a terrorist.

Classifying them as terrorists or freedom fighters and making some sort of moral value judgment doesn’t do that and, in my view, polarizes things to an unworkable level.

You're the one assuming that the two are labels that are moral judgements. I see the labels as words that help define motivation and method.

[Jungle]

Whilst trying to complete a few of my assignments some previous professors/authors have describes some resistance groups as terrorists groups.

To be specific one author writes that the East Timorese group FALINTIL/ FRETLIN was/is a terrorists groups.
I also served in East Timor under INTERFET; I don't see how FALINTIL could be labelled as terrorist. They were attacking legitimate targets: the military Forces of an occupying power. Remember East Timor was invaded by Indonesia illegally (according to international law) so the members of FALINTIL were actually Freedom Fighters trying to liberate their country from an oppressive regime, without resorting to terrorist tactics.

Finally, I agree that Freedom Fighters could resort to terrorist tactics; they are different beasts.

[OZEbullfighter]

It would be interesting to know when the Author wrote the book and what Actions he base's his commenst on

[Ramma]

It would be interesting to know when the Author wrote the book and what Actions he base's his commenst on

The book is called TERRORISM EXPLAINED: A HISTORY OF TERRORISM was written and published in 2004.

I have attached my critique of the book.

TERRORISM EXPLAINED, has been written to give entry level readers a basic understanding of the history of terrorism, an introduction to some of the organisations and groups involved and some terrorist related incidents.
Each section of the text is broken down in to a logical and sequential date order, which provides the novice reader with an understanding of how influential the various forms of terrorism have been through history. Williams writings explores terrorism from the Jewish Zealots in 6AD, to Guy Fawkes in 1605 and most recently the attacks on the World Trade Centre in the United States of America. The author also provides information on various areas of operations for terrorists groups.
In chapter 2 “Terrorism 1968 to Today” Williams writes a brief description of how a number of so called terrorist groups were formed and gives a small summary of what incidents the groups were involved in. However in some instances within the chapter, Williams states the name of a particular group with no defined acts of terrorism. On page 31, Williams introduces the group The Revolutionary Force for an Independent East Timor, (FRETLIN). Briefly discussed was the position this particular group held. However, Williams fails to engage the reader with a specific example of a terrorist attack. He examines how the Indonesian Government was involved with fighting against FRETLIN, and indeed this Indonesian Government was involved with acts of terrorism itself.
The theme throughout the text is that he defines terrorism to be politically motivated through the majority of situations except for when discussing Al-Qaeda. Here he explains their motivations as being for an Islamic state. There are other groups named within the text that also have religious motivations for their attacks.
Williams also states throughout that groups were involved in large incidents but does not clearly describe or define dates.
Another area where the author fails to cover is that why are “freedom fighter” or “revolutionary forces” such as FRETILIN, Black Panthers or Tamil Tigers classed as terrorist. This could of possibly been covered under an in depth definition.
Williams successfully engages the reader with a brief introduction of various terrorist groups. However, he fails to go into significant detail on all groups he introduces to the reader. As a result the reader will need to make further inquiries into more detailed information from other sources. Williams appears to be unbiased completely through the whole text which offers the novice reader a clear insight to terrorism and its history.

[magician]

It doesn’t matter if these guys are terrorists or not, but rather, are they useful to achieving my country’s ends. This isn’t a simple question as our support for unsavory allies in the past has backfired significantly. Still, we should be pragmatic in our decision making rather than using ideological notions of who is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I fear that our haste to label threats to our nation as ‘terrorists’ is more a propaganda device than a strategic vision and that it engenders a polarizing view of the world, rather than the shades of gray reality that it is.

This has been true in the past, and I think that you make a good point. We throw terms like "terrorist" around in a very imprecise way, and this term is often emotionally loaded, and tantamount to being a weapon itself.

I do have to disagree with you, however, when you state that "it does not matter if these guys are terrorists or not." It does matter.

The moral dimension is critical in conflict. Particularly for democracies.

Further, you do not have to look very far to find examples of "pragmatic decision making" that turned out badly. The Taliban come to mind, as do Osama and company. They were creations of the Pakistanis, using our money.

The Saudis are our allies today, but when you consider the content of the sermons preached in their mosques, you have to wonder when our relationship will sour. This is a very complex example, with geopolitical dimensions, but I think that it fits the paradigm. Watch what happens when the House of Saud is overthrown. We had best pray that it is not done by religious extremists, but frankly, I do not think that the odds are favorable.

Iran is another example. Under the Shah, Iran was a reliable ally, even though the Shah was far from a beloved democratic populist leader. When the mullahs and revolutionary students overthrew him, guess what? Iran became US Enemy Number One, and we still have not punished them for multiple transgressions, beginning with the kidnappings in Beirut in the 1980's, and the bombings of the Marines in 1983. Our failure to respond appropriately to Iranian affronts over the past decades has merely emboldened them, to a point where they believe that they are nearly invulnerable. They are waging a proxy war against us in Iraq, and I think that it is high time that we moved against their leadership in a precise fashion. Their populace is the factor holding us back, in my opinion, as most Iranians want Western liberties, not a fundamentalist Islamic state.

What about Egypt today? It is far from a democracy, and we fund them in virtual parity with Israel. Egypt, like Saudi Arabia, is a time bomb.

How about Israel? I do not want to digress too far, but they have done a very good job making it difficult to resolve the so-called Palestinian question, building settlements even though they committed not to do so in agreement after agreement. Now they have been nearly stalemated by Hamas. It makes no sense to wait until Hezbollah or Hamas gets a nuclear device via the remnants of the A.Q. Khan network. Or directly from Iran.

There are numerous examples from the wars in Central America, with the Argentines creating so-called "death squads" which acted as US proxies in the 1980's. A whole hell of a lot of people vanished in Guatemala, El Sal, and Honduras, just as they did in Chile and Argentina beforehand.

I could go on, and on, and on. My point is, mere pragmatism with dubious morality has not worked out too well for us. On the flip side, you could say that "waging democracy" also has its hazards, though there are many more positive examples to cite.

Furthermore, my ROE is functionally no different than the guidance given in a fatwa issued by an Imam exhorting the killing of Americans but not of other Muslims. Both are restrictions on the use of force designed to improve the political position of one side of a conflict, particularly in a COIN fight.

A fatwah appeals to a much higher authority than ROE. A fatwah derives from an interpretation of the word of God, or from the word of The Prophet. It is difficult to imagine a better example of the "moral dimension in conflict."


Perhaps you view this as crazy talk, but I would challenge you to divorce yourself of your perspective as an American for a moment and examine our conduct in the past century and show me how our killing of innocents is fundamentally different than what our enemies, terrorist or not, have done. We may have tried to minimize it and they might have tried to maximize it, but innocent people still ended up dead. I have never heard a convincing argument that killing an innocent person is a legitimate act.

This is exactly why so many of our enemies call us "terrorists."


I fight for my country for two reasons. Firstly, my mother, a South Vietnamese refugee, taught me what can happen when you and yours are on the losing end of a war. That won’t happen on my watch. The second is that I think that what the United States does with a monopoly of force is better than any other nation out there, and moreover, our support for free markets and free expression does more to prevent future conflicts than any other tactic. I’d like to fight myself out of a job, but that doesn’t seem likely these days.

Thanks for being a great American, thanks for thinking about the consequences of your actions, and thanks for doing the deed.

Guys like you are one of the few things that keep me from complete cynicism.

[CombatWombat]

Hmmm.

I have few things to mull over in light of the insights provided by Magician, Greenhat et al. I think I need to examine both the fundamental basis of my POV, as well as how I articulate it.

I am going to do some thinking before I post a response but I didn't want any of you to think I was ignoring your comments in the meantime.

Thanks much for the time and thought put into your critiques. I appreciate it.

[Jungle]

I visited a place in East Timor near Ainaro, where the cliff was almost next to the road; the Indons called it "Jakarta". There was a concrete pad on the edge of the cliff, from where they pushed hundreds of handcuffed and blindfolded Timorese to their death. The victims were usually civilians sympathetic to FRETILIN/ FALINTIL, or people who denounced the abuses.
I also saw "detention" centers and torture rooms that made Abu Ghraib look like a massage parlor...

Those are examples of terrorism. They were carried out by the Indonesian military and their militias, notably MAHIDI in the area where I was.

It would be interesting if the author actually compared who was terrorizing the local population the most: FALINTIL or the Indonesian military and their militias !!

[Greenhat]

We throw terms like "terrorist" around in a very imprecise way, and this term is often emotionally loaded, and tantamount to being a weapon itself.

Very, very good point. And that is why the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comment has any legs at all. Because both labels are misused.

[BrooklynBen]

RAMMA - It's always been sort of simple to me;

"Freedom Fighter" = one who fights against oppressions for personal liberties and universal freedoms.

Terrorist = one who by either tactic or design; uses, threatens or kills non-combatants.

Liberal professors often loath any definitions of morality. They dispense with notions of Honor and blur the definition of all warriors as equal 'mutual combatants'. Try not to let your professor's ignorance about such things rub off on you. ;)

[Darksaga]

As has been stated...

the key is how they deal with the civilian population as to whether a group is insurgent/terrorist or freedom fighter.

[NightLandNav]

The point made by Magician, and reiterated by GH, is critical to the issue.

GH's first definition in post #2 is as clear as it gets.

Subsequent confusion is the result of, as Magician stated, "imprecise" use. The "misuse" is self evident once a false distinction has been made.

This does NOT complicate the issue...do not be drawn into the "logic circles" that make it so.

On the contrary, the clear definition simplifies every example, and bears out the difference, regardless of any present combinations.

Arguments to the contrary, rely primarily on misdirection. From there they just get less sophisticated.

[Greenhat]

I mentioned John Brown. I think I'm going to expound a bit more on the man.

John Brown was a terrorist. His tactics in both Kansas and at Harper's Ferry were terrorist tactics. His intent after Harper's Ferry was to continue to use terrorist tactics.

John Brown was also a freedom fighter. He clearly fought for the freedom of blacks who were enslaved in the various slave states.

John Brown demonstrates that it is NOT an either/or question.

Someone can be a terrorist and not be a freedom fighter.
Someone can be freedom fighter and not be a terrorist.
Someone can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
Someone can be neither.