Freedom Fighter or Terrorist

[Nielas]

While we're on the subject of American history and terrorism, what's your thoughts on John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry? I've had friends divided on the issue, with some calling him an extremist with noble intentions and other decrying him as a terrorist that only served to make an already tense situation worse.

I don't know much about the subject but, I can understand the reasoning behind his actions. But honestly, although I don't think what actually happened caused that much harm (mind, I don't know much about the event so take my opinion as a grain of salt), I doubt it would cause much good if he succeeded. It may sound extreme, but if he succeeded it may have caused another type of cultural divide in which a portion of the former-slaves may wish to enslave the whites.

It also would not have made a change in the law unless he managed to amass a large enough "army" of followers to effectively fear the state governments or the federal governments into illegalising slavery. However, this might just cause the Civil War to begin early, with slight differences in who started it.

To sum it up, I agree with those who say that his actions were extreme with noble purposes. I just don't see how it could have helped the situation, at least without great bloodshed, which happened anyway.

Correct me on any of this if I'm wrong.

For a more clear cut case you should look at his actions during the Bloody Kansas years. Kansas was a new state where a vote of the population was to decide if it would be a free state or a slave state. Both sides of the issue tried to force the vote to go their way but initially the pro-slave faction was winning the race to steal the vote. This is when John Brown went to Kansas and things turned bloody. The anti-slave faction raided and burned the farms of the pro-slave faction and the pro-slave faction raided and burned the farms of the anti-slave faction.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Personally, I'd say that probably half of the Taliban in Afghanistan aren't insurgents because of their religion, but are doing it because

a) they need to put food on the table, and the Taliban can easily provide this

b) their land has been taken over by a foreign country that kills far more civilians than the Taliban does

c) one or more of their loved ones was killed by American forces.

The US is creating far more sympathizers to actual religious nuts with its actions. Bleh.

As I understand it, the Taliban isn't doing much of anything in Afghanistan anymore. It's convenient to label everyone who opposes ISAF as "The Taliban", because the truth is more complicated and murkier.

 

[370999]

Terrorist is somewhat easy to define being someone who use terror for political goals. I would also say that that they are required to be in a some type of organised political movement. 9/11 was terrorism, Brevik (that Norwegian chap) was not. Governments are never terrorists but can use terror tactics and do.

Freedom fight is much more nebulous and seems to basically mean person violently opposing an immoral government for benevolent purposes.

 

[Woodsey]

Freedom fighters are terrorists who I agree with. That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

[wolf thing]

whether or not they win in the end i suppose. but terrorism is a tactic so i suppose a terrorist is more specific someone who instills fear, while a freedom fighter is more vague about there aprotue

 

[Something Amyss]

In your opinion, what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Who's telling the story.

Usually, it's all just semantics, but you seem to already know that.

 

[Jegsimmons]

In your opinion, what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Personally, you'd have to judge it case by case.
For example, I think the American government is total evil, trying to put the population in constant fear and needed an 'enemy' to point the figure at. Thus attack and try to 'liberate' the middle east. In this example I wouldn't call them terrorists, rather - freedom fighters.

With the IRA, when the British were chillin' in Ireland, I'd call them all freedom fighters. It's only when the IRA decided to branch out and attack them in their own home would I call them terrorists.

So Escapist, your opinion?
(I'm not a history student by the way, if that's not how the IRA thing went down, don't harang me.)

that is really frikkin backwards.
also, its the media, not the government. big difference, and the media does it for ratings.

a terrorist is someone who uses terror tactics and intentionally kills non combatants to make a point.
say what you want about 'evil america' we dont kill civilians, and doing so gets your ass a court martial and thrown in prison.
The IRA (or who ever is doing the attacks) are by definition terrorist due to the fact they use violence on military and non military targets to achieve what they want.
it used to be noble, but one too many bus bombs will change your mind.

a freedom fighter is someone who fights a military or regime that they fell is oppressive and fights to achieve POSITIVE rights and results.
such as the american revolutionaries and the libyan revolutionaries.
what make these people different is that they fight for EVERYONE and not for personal gain and try to avoid civilian casualties (i say try because shit always happens.)

 

[Rastien]

In your opinion, what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Personally, you'd have to judge it case by case.
For example, I think the American government is total evil, trying to put the population in constant fear and needed an 'enemy' to point the figure at. Thus attack and try to 'liberate' the middle east. In this example I wouldn't call them terrorists, rather - freedom fighters.

With the IRA, when the British were chillin' in Ireland, I'd call them all freedom fighters. It's only when the IRA decided to branch out and attack them in their own home would I call them terrorists.

So Escapist, your opinion?
(I'm not a history student by the way, if that's not how the IRA thing went down, don't harang me.)

Depends which side of the agruement you are personally sat, and which way the guns are pointing i guess.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I define terrorism as deliberate attacking of civilians in order to pressure governments. To me it is murder that the perpetrators merely justify with politics , it's a lot easier to kill non-combatants that have nothing to do with a war. To quote Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as political bombing or political murder -- there is only criminal bombing and criminal murder,"

Palestinian Suicide Bombers? As long as they attack civilians and use civilians as shields, they are terrorists to me. If you want to show how effective this is, just look at Arab Spring, it took one guy who killed himself via immolation without bombing anyone to start a multi-national revolution. Over a thousand Palestinian bombs and nothing has been accomplished. Does this destroy the credibility of the legitimate arguments that non-extremists have made about Israel's actions? No.


tl;dr the moment they start deliberately attacking people who have no wish to fight, they are terrorists.

Which then begs the question, how deliberate are the actions of armies?

 

[Thaluikhain]

tl;dr the moment they start deliberately attacking people who have no wish to fight, they are terrorists.

Which then begs the question, how deliberate are the actions of armies?

Why not go one step further, how deliberate are the actions of politicians.

When a antion is invaded, civilians die, no matter how much the military tries to minimise this. If a nation is invaded as a show of strength, or to deter otehr nations from somewhere, does that count as terrorism.

 

[Sam Warrior]

My opinion: mostly depends who's side your on, to me the IRA are terrorists but to an oppressed Irish person the IRA are probably freedom fighters.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I have nothing to go on for this other than my own personal opinion, but I think there are two key differences.

One is in motivation. A freedom-fighter is motivated by their desire for freedom and self-determination for themselves and their people. A terrorist is motivated by their desire to impose their ideologies on others, taking away freedom and self-determination.

The second is in practice. A freedom-fighter may use guerrilla tactics, but he/she would employ them against military/political targets only, no intentional collateral damage. A terrorist will deliberately attack innocent non-combatants for shock value.

 

[dyre]

Personally, I'd say that probably half of the Taliban in Afghanistan aren't insurgents because of their religion, but are doing it because

a) they need to put food on the table, and the Taliban can easily provide this

b) their land has been taken over by a foreign country that kills far more civilians than the Taliban does

c) one or more of their loved ones was killed by American forces.

The US is creating far more sympathizers to actual religious nuts with its actions. Bleh.

As I understand it, the Taliban isn't doing much of anything in Afghanistan anymore. It's convenient to label everyone who opposes ISAF as "The Taliban", because the truth is more complicated and murkier.

They're still around. Some villages in Afghanistan even look to the Taliban for security and stability because they don't want to go through the massive bureaucracy that is the Afghan government to get something done. But yeah, the Taliban is no longer just the tyrannical Sharia law militants; it's a variety of different peoples who are disgruntled with the current government and occupation.

 

[dyre]

I have nothing to go on for this other than my own personal opinion, but I think there are two key differences.

One is in motivation. A freedom-fighter is motivated by their desire for freedom and self-determination for themselves and their people. A terrorist is motivated by their desire to impose their ideologies on others, taking away freedom and self-determination.

The second is in practice. A freedom-fighter may use guerrilla tactics, but he/she would employ them against military/political targets only, no intentional collateral damage. A terrorist will deliberately attack innocent non-combatants for shock value.

I think the problem is that many "freedom fighter" groups have done enough bad stuff (I mean, come on, even members of the US military sometimes intentionally kill civilians, and quite often strike targets knowing that civilians are probably going to die) to be called "terrorists" by their opposition, and many "terrorist" groups might have sufficient ideals to be called "freedom fighters" by their supporters.

In the end, the terms are often useless to describe a lot of situations, sort of like the terms "good guys" and "bad guys"

 

[bz316]

A terrorist is one who attempts to push their ideas and goals via terror, hence "terrorist". Though I'm sure this terror would have to be pushed on the general populace to apply.


So, for example, the revolutionaries of the American Revolution were not terrorists because they did not terrorize the American people. However, if they did, then they could be truthfully be labeled terrorists.

Thus, a freedom fighter could also be a terrorist depending on their tactics.

I thought "terrorists" used "terror" against their enemies. So while revolutionaries didn't terrorize the American populace, which would've made no sense, they did tar and feather British government officials and what not so I'm sure the British would've saw them as something like what would be termed "terrorists."

I never considered that. I assume terror to both their enemies and those whom they're trying to "convince" to their side via terror.

Though I'm still not completely convinced that the revolutionaries in the American Revolution were terrorists. Don't get me wrong, it's not because I'm American, it's because they didn't have terrorist intentions. Sure, some did in fact tar and feather British officers and officials, but that was an attempt at punishment during war. Although some may have intended for those events to terrorize the British, I doubt many did.

EDIT: Fixed grammatical mistakes.

This is an interesting debate, but let me put forward this point: during the revolution, colonial soldiers, often under the command of their superior officers, frequently plundered and stole from locals. This was primarily from "Loyalists" (technically they were Americans at this point though, even if they didn't believe in the cause), but this was also done to neutrals and occasionally even "Patriots". With the loyalists, the soldiers would often kill them and/or destroy their homes and property as a warning. Keep in mind these were people who, under the terms of what the new congress claimed jurisdiction over, were considered to be Americans, i.e. the revolutionaries own people. I would certainly say that even if the revolutionaries weren't "terrorists" per se, they at least did some terrorist-esqu things.

 

[bz316]

Well for starters, Freedom Fighters are anthropomorphic woodland creatures:

....you win. You've won this message thread. Well done!

 

[bz316]

While we're on the subject of American history and terrorism, what's your thoughts on John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry? I've had friends divided on the issue, with some calling him an extremist with noble intentions and other decrying him as a terrorist that only served to make an already tense situation worse.

I don't know much about the subject but, I can understand the reasoning behind his actions. But honestly, although I don't think what actually happened caused that much harm (mind, I don't know much about the event so take my opinion as a grain of salt), I doubt it would cause much good if he succeeded. It may sound extreme, but if he succeeded it may have caused another type of cultural divide in which a portion of the former-slaves may wish to enslave the whites.

It also would not have made a change in the law unless he managed to amass a large enough "army" of followers to effectively fear the state governments or the federal governments into illegalising slavery. However, this might just cause the Civil War to begin early, with slight differences in who started it.

To sum it up, I agree with those who say that his actions were extreme with noble purposes. I just don't see how it could have helped the situation, at least without great bloodshed, which happened anyway.

Correct me on any of this if I'm wrong.

John Brown was probably correct in his assertions that slavery in the US could only be ended by force of arms. However, he was not the man to do it. If he had been wiser, he would have waited and found someone with actual military/guerilla war experience and planned it out better. As it was, he just got himself and a bunch of other people hanged, and the only person his band succeeded in killings was actually a freed African American just minding his own business. I'd hesitate to call him anything other than "grossly incompetent."

 

[Redingold]

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can fight for freedom by using terror tactics.

If you insist on drawing a false dichotomy, then the moment innocent civilians are intentionally killed is where a freedom fighter becomes a terrorist.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

and the only person his band succeeded in killings was actually a freed African American just minding his own business.

Check your sources, there were at least two more separate raids and he killed at least 5 in one of the others. Also it wasn't as if he failed to kill anymore than the freedman on the train, for unknown reasons, he let it pass through.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Those are the same things, it just depends which side you like and which side you don't.

And to those saying that freedom fighter follow the rules of war, you couldn't be more wrong.
First of all, there are no rules of war.

When was the last time that you heard of an American general going to court for the war in the Middle East? You hear many times x civilians killed by the US army bombing imaginary terrorists.
You see many videos of US military doing shit to children and the dead.

Only the weak follow "the rules", which are there so that the strong can still be strong and control the weak and prevent them from getting stronger.

Why is no one allowed to have nuclear and biological weapon... except the USA, Russia and China?

So yea, rules of war DON'T exist.

Second, if someone is a freedom fighter, they are ALWAYS at a HUGE disadvantage. They can't play the game like gentlemen and have a duel at 12 o'clock.

They have to play dirty, else they would have no way of winning.