Kylere wrote:Umm soldiers target soldiers, and aggressors. Terrorists target truck drivers and satellite repair dudes, and water plant experts.
Freedom Fighters do not kill their own people to terrorize them, ala Viet Cong.
Hehe, you should try to check out the definitions of Terrorist and Freedom Fighters.
Ill even provide the info for you.
As you can see from this, the term Terrorist/freedom fighter are often interchangeable, depending on your points of view. Which are a thing that most people in here fail to see. What you call evil terrorists can (and most likely are) be viewed as freedom fighters by a large number of the population in Iraq.
And if you take a look at the history of terrorists and Freedom fighters, you will see that the US sponsored quite a few terrorists themselves, including the terrorists in Afghanistan.
As you can also see, a lot of persons formerly labelled terrorists by various contries (lets use the 3 taken from the article i posted, (Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat, Menachem Begin) are nowadays not viewed as terrorists, and are actually people that have been considered for a nobel peace price.
Freedom fighter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate. The terms "freedom" and "rebellion" are often controversial, as often both sides in armed conflict claim to represent the popular cause of "freedom." While outside (perhaps imperial) oppressors almost always claim to be "liberators," freedom fighters also often become oppressors in the eyes of civilians.
Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, common use is restricted to those who are actively involved in an armed rebellion, rather than those who "fight" for freedom by peaceful means (though they may use the title metaphorically).
History
Historically, we find that people who are self-described "freedom fighters" tend to be called assassins, rebels, or "terrorists" by their foes. During the Cold War, the term freedom fighter was widely used by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by Communist governments or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua, and the Islamist mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
The Soviet Union used the term in the same way, to describe rebel movements in countries controlled by or under the influence of the United States and other Western Bloc countries, such as Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Colombia. These rebels often used guerrilla tactics. Some were clearly assassins. The asymmetric warfare employed on both sides made many people in the West to assume moral equivalence between the two phenomena. Perhaps the more reasoned approach to evaluating these movements would be to look at their actual goals, doctrines, and practices. It would seem inappropriate to lump together the savage, Maoist Sendero Luminoso of Peru and the socially concerned, if authoritarian, Nicaraguan Sandinistas; the same goes for the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian rebels v.s. the Afghan Mujahadeen.
The term "freedom fighter", while indicating favor of some political group, often does not reflect any actual political position of those fighting. For example, to many people around the world, the leftist Sandinistas were freedom fighters. After their revolution took Nicaragua, the CIA funded a new opposition, the Contras, who were labeled as freedom fighters by the United States government and rebels or terrorists by the Sandinistas and Soviet Union. Of all political labels, "freedom fighter" is perhaps the most blunt term for "friend" - some think that it signals an unwillingness to abandon moral support regardless of methods, an unbreakable alliance between players.
The ambiguity of the term freedom makes the use of the label freedom fighter particularly useful for propaganda purposes. It is relatively simple to show that the "enemy" has done something which violates one of the many possible meanings of the word freedom, which allows the propagandist to appear to take the moral high ground by fighting for the cause of freedom. In addition to this, propagandists commonly use virtue words like freedom, which tend to evoke positive images in the target audience in order to attach those images and feelings to his cause.[/b]
Certain media agencies, notably the BBC, and Reuters aside from attributed quotes, refuse to use the phrase "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", or even more descriptive and neutral terms such as "militant", "guerrilla" or "assassin", to avoid the political repercussions of the use of such words. The BBC did, however refer to the mainly-Catholic Provisional Irish Republican Army as terrorists, while members of mainly Protestant armed groups in Northern Ireland were usually referred to as "paramilitaries" rather than terrorists. Al Qaeda militants are usually referred to as terrorists, especially since September 11, 2001. The actions of Timothy McVeigh were also described as terrorism.
Terrorist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Old Testament contains many references to behavior that can be described as terrorism. In the 1st century, Zealots conducted a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman occupiers of the eastern Mediterranean. The Zealots enlisted sicarii to strike down rich Jewish collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans.
In the 11th century, the radical Islamic sect known as the Assassins employed systematic murder for a cause they believed to be righteous. For two centuries, they resisted efforts to suppress their religious beliefs and developed ritualized murder into a fine art taught through generations. Political aims were achieved through the power of intimidation.
During the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), the most severe period of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety (1793 - 1795) was labelled "The Terror" (1793 - 1794) and described Jacobin excesses. Some argue that this period is an example of state-sponsored terrorism. Certainly, it induced fear and outrage not only in the domestic population of France, but also throughout the European aristocracy.
In the early 19th century, Spanish insurgents successfully employed terrorism against Napoleonic domination.
By the mid-19th century, Russian intelligentsia grew impatient with the slow pace of Tsarist reforms, and sought instead to transform peasant discontent into open revolution. Anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin maintained that progress was impossible without destruction. Their objective was nothing less than complete destruction of the state. Anything that contributed to this goal was regarded as moral. With the development of sufficiently powerful, stable, and affordable explosives, the gap closed between the firepower of the state and the means available to dissidents. Organized into secret societies like the People's Will, Russian terrorists launched a campaign of terror against the state that climaxed in 1881 when Tsar Alexander II of Russia was assassinated. Also, a revolutionary Irish-American group called the Fenian Brotherhood planted explosive devices around the city of London in particular and the British mainland in general in the mid 1800's, in protest to the British occupation of Ireland. This is often seen as the first act of 'republican Terrorism'
Today, modern weapons technology has made it possible for a "super-empowered angry man" (Thomas Friedman) to cause a large amount of destruction by himself or with only a few conspirators. It can be, and has been, conducted by small as well as large organizations.
Some believe that individuals or groups resort to terrorism when other avenues for change, including economics, protest, public appeal, and organized warfare, hold no hope of success (also see rioting). Therefore some argue that one approach to reduce terrorism is to ensure that where there is a population feeling oppressed, some avenue of problem resolution is kept open, even if the population in question is in the minority.
Others, for example the American intellectual Noam Chomsky, believe that terrorism is typically sponsored by governments through the organisation, funding or training of death squads and similar paramilitary groups, often under the banner of counter-terrorism. Thus the causes of terrorism include attempts to gain or consolidate power either by instilling fear in the population to be controlled, or by stimulating another group into becoming a hardened foe, thereby setting up a polarizing us-versus-them paradigm (also see nationalism and fascism).
Terrorists often seek to demoralize and paralyze their enemy with fear. This sometimes works, but it can also stiffen the enemy's resolve.
In general, retribution against terrorists can result in escalating tit-for-tat violence. It is often felt that if the consequences of engaging in terrorism are not swift and punitive, the deterrent to other terrorist groups is diminished.
Terrorism relies heavily on surprise. Terrorist attacks can trigger sudden transitions into conflict or war. Frequently, after a terrorist attack, a number of unassociated groups may claim responsibility for the action; this may be considered "free publicity" for the organization's aims or plans. Because of its anonymous and sometimes self-sacrificial nature, it is not uncommon for the reasons behind the terrorist action to remain unknown or murky for a considerable period.
The existing order within countries or internationally depends on compromises and agreements between various groups and interests that were made to resolve past conflicts. Over time, these arrangements become less relevant to the current situation. Some terrorist acts seem calculated to disrupt the existing order and provoke conflicts in the expectation that it will lead to a new order more favorable to their interests.
Some people considered to be terrorists, or supporters of terrorist actions, at some point in their lives have gone on to become dedicated peace activists (Uri Avnery), respected statesmen (Yitzhak Shamir) and even Nobel Peace Prize laureates (Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat, Menachem Begin). This illustrates the plasticity of the term as well as increasing politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize.
. Wonder why this is ? Bad leadership with no real plan or grasp of tactics, perhaps?
