Terrorism v. Freedom-Fighting:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

One thing that I've noticed is a slippery pair of terms tend to be thrown around based to some extent on ideological consistency, and to other extents on national interests. For instance the obvious modern example is Israel-Palestine. Depending on the sides one takes both Hamas and Fatah are either freedom fighters for nationalist aims or terrorists hell-bent on destroying Israel. Other examples are the LTTE, who to some would be freedom fighters, to others a particularly unpleasant blend of religious extremists and terrorists, who introduced suicide bombing into the methods of terrorists. And there's also Nelson Mandela and the ANC in the earlier phase of violent resistance to Apartheid.

Edit-It has been pointed out by one of the South Africans here that the ANC deliberately limited its targets to the infrastructure of the Apartheid regime. Hence I will note that this does differentiate the ANC in its more violent phase from what Hamas does and the LTTE did.

He provided these six links that I will add here:
ANC as terrorists:
http://www.letterdash.com/smartguy/anc-terrorists-or-freedom-fighters

http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv02918/06lv02938.htm

ANC as Freedom Fighters:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8089819.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/21/world/anc-acts-to-halt-civilian-attacks.html

http://www.anc.org.za/4428

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ANC+bomber+%27regrets%27+civilian+deaths+in+anti-apartheid+battle.-a060783858

The way I look at it, even if the end for which certain means are used by non-state organizations/individuals are ultimately good those means themselves are still terrorism in every sense of the term. Mandela started as a terrorist opposed to a totalitarian regime, but he was still a terrorist. Similarly Israel's methods and means can be seen as very much settler-colonialism with all that entails, but this no less makes Hamas and Fatah terrorist organizations (just like Haganah and Irgun were terrorist organizations also).

I believe that the concept of freedom fighters is a sop by which people can approve of some terrorists who have causes that meet the sympathies of various movements/individuals but not having to call a terrorist a terrorist. And yes, there are some cases where terrorism is a perfectly valid means to an end: Mandela against Apartheid, John Brown against the Slave Power, the Zapatistas against their Mexican conquerors and so on.

So what say you? 

1) What do you see as the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

2) Is there ever a case where you personally would see terrorism as a justifiable response to a political-military situation? 

3) If the difference is defined as one targets civilians, but the other doesn't what differentiates the terrorist from the conventional military strategies that deliberately target civilians, like strategic bombing or counterpartisan sweeps?

Comments

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

1) What do you see as the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

The justness of their cause. I honestly believe that a technique employed for good is morally distinct from the same technique employed for evil. Totally unthinkable for a pinko, PC, cultural relativist right?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nah, that's a fair point to disagree on. To me the end can be good but the end does not justify the means.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

The difference to me is that "freedom fighters" confine their violence to what might be termed "legitimate" targets (e.g. their enemy's military or paramilitary forces), while terrorists attack military and civilian targets alike, sometimes preferring civilian targets.

Take the American vs. the French or Russian Revolutions. The Americans might have been termed "terrorists" by the British had the term existed back then, but they didn't target British civilians or try to fundamentally alter every aspect of society. The French and Russian revolutionaries on the other hand tried to completely wipe out not only their perceived oppressors but also the Church, everyone in the State who didn't agree with the revolution, and any private citizen who didn't toe the line.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which is a distinction that has applied to no actual movement that could be termed freedom fighters.

The gap between the American and French Revolutionary Wars is partially that one was a more typical revolution, the other an embellished secession war, and on the other that the experience of Loyalist Americans and Indigenous Americans has been entirely written out of the history books with the American Revolutionary War, while the defeat of Napoleon ensured every atrocity by Revolutionary Frenchmen came to life.

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

Not so much "terrorist vs freedom-fighter", as "terrorist vs guerilla". In other words, I view terrorists and guerillas as different subtypes of {freedom-fighter / revolutionary / insurgent / asymmetrical warfare fighter}

A guerrilla is a fighter for a cause, who adheres as much as possible to the laws of war. He attacks military targets, and to the extent he can, tries to avoid civilian casualties. A terrorist, on the other hand, specifically targets noncombatants, with the goal of being as horrendous as possible.

Both may share the same goal, but one is a warrior and one is a criminal.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that guerrillas will *always* turn to attacking civilians. There's a method behind the madness as it means that the reprisals of the targeted government will have to hit the civilians, too, which would only increase sympathy for the guerrillas while being lose-lose for the government.

Guerrilla warfare in the real world is a very unpleasant type of warfare, to the point that it can lose sympathy even from those who might otherwise sympathize with it. So in one sense a freedom fighter is a terrorist who tries to have some scruples which can't work in the long term.

For another example, would the Mujahideen be freedom fighters or terrorists?

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

I guess I see them as overlapping (but not identical) circles on a Venn diagram.

Freedom fighters share a goal - the liberation of 'their' land from the government in power.
Terrorists share a tactic - terror (practiced primarily on civilians)

Not all FF are T, not all T are FF.

---

I find it hard to imagine a situation where I'd think blowing up a random marketplace was justified. But I could possibly countenance, say, freedom-fighting saboteurs blowing up a rail-line (of military or logistic importance) in Nazi Germany, despite a certainty of civilian casualties.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I could think of several where it would be. If the marketplace for instance has a particular visitor who's committed atrocities and/or is a good and talented enemy of the movement on off-hours, that eliminates the problem. Or for instance if the marketplace happens to be a vital nerve center of the enemy's economy, there's everything to be gained from attacks there, from a kind of Tet Offensive strategy.

Where the partisan warfare in WWII for much of it had a strong military purpose and overtone and it was the Nazi reprisals that targeted everybody indiscriminately that served to strengthen it. Where by contrast in the US Civil War and the Russian Civil War guerrilla warfare didn't even slow down the victorious sides, and terrorism ultimately did serve to consolidate segregation.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"I regret the deaths of innocent civilians killed in the cause of the fight for justice and freedom,"
"The ANC has never been callous in its struggle. We never set out deliberately to attack civilian targets," (source (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ANC+bomber+%27regrets%27+civilian+deaths+in+anti-apartheid+battle.-a060783858))

The African National Congress yesterday told South African church leaders that the policy of its guerrillas is not to attack civilian targets. (source (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8089819.html))

Leaders of the African National Congress have for the first time accepted responsibility for some recent bombing attacks on civilians and said they have taken the first steps to prevent a recurrence. (source (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/21/world/anc-acts-to-halt-civilian-attacks.html))

TAMBO: In 1980 we signed the Geneva protocols and said that if we captured any enemy soldiers we would treat them as prisoners of war. The fact is we are not against civilians. We do not include them in our definition of the enemy. The ANC was nonviolent for a whole decade in the face of violence against African civilians. What do we mean by a civilian? It really means white civilians. No one refers to Africans as civilians and they have been the victims of shootings all the time. Even children. They have been killed in the hundreds. Yet the word has not been used in all these years. Now it is being used, especially after the Pretoria bomb (outside Air Force headquarters). But implicit in the practice of the South African regime is that when you shoot an African you are not killing a civilian. We don`t want to kill civilians. But some will be hit, quite accidentally and regrettably. I am sure we are going to lose many civilians and many innocent people, as happens in any violent situation. The situation of heightened conflict is going to destroy human life as well as property. I am afraid this is coming. Bombs will explode, and one or two people who were not intended to be there will be killed. (source (http://www.anc.org.za/4428))


The ANC did not target civilians. They specifically targeted the power structures of the apartheid regime. Yes, civilians did die as a result of their activity. A thing they regret to this day.

To compare them to Hamas, who made a strategy of trying to kill as many civilians as possible in order to cause chaos and fear, is a discredit to the ANC, not to mention how discrediting it is of Mandela.


But because I'd like all sides to be presented,

http://www.letterdash.com/smartguy/anc-terrorists-or-freedom-fighters

http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv02918/06lv02938.htm

Make your pick for yourself.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're right, and I'll edit my post above to note that and add those two links there. However I'd note that Haganah did the targeting civilians business forty years before Hamas even existed.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

The terms Terrorist and Freedom Fighter are not and either or question, they aren't even on a spectrum with Terrorists on one end and Freedom Fighters on the other.

The difference between them is that each term describes something different. Freedom Fighter refers to motivation, Terrorist refers to tactics.

So some Terrorists are also Freedom Fighters and some are not, some Freedom Fighters are also Terrorists and some are not.

That said, no, there is never any valid reason for engaging in terrorism, at least not terrorism as properly defined which is the deliberate use of violence or threat of violence as a means to instill fear in the populace for the purpose of bringing about desired political ends.

So no, bombing purely civilian targets is never acceptable, deliberately targeting civilians in any way shape or form is never acceptable, however targeting political, police, fire, and military personnel or facilities is perfectly acceptable even if those attacks result in civilian casualties and the same is true of commercial and other critical facilities. As long as the goal is not to cause those civilian casualties but rather the destruction of the enemies ability to continue to wage war

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty sensible definition, though in practice it's not one that very much exists in the real world.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For all intents and purposes they are the same the only difference being the opinion of the speaker.

Personally I try to stick to "insurgent" as it's a more descriptive term.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which I agree, and it's also more neutral in that sense.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

it depends too on the level of opression they are facing. the jews of the warsaw ghetto were entitled to use any means they could to save their lives. Not the percieved quality of their lives, their very lives. The americans of the revolution wernt fighting for their lives exactly, so that moves them a step down the moral high ground. we could prob build a league table of rightousness

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

To say nothing of the Jews of say, Sobibor and in Auschwitz who led resistance in the camps themselves. Not to mention the Black Panthers in the age of Massive Resistance.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

1) Semantics.
2) No. But I'm a pacifist.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which as a pacifist would give you a consistency in its own right that I respect.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Great post, great questions.

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Well, a freedom fighter is fighting for freedom, that's obvious but essential. I also think that methodology has a lot to do with it, and that we can usefully distinguishing between guerilla warfare and terrorism. The objective is key. If one is attacking primarily because the attack in itself furthers one's goals, that's not terrorism, even if it's done by a non-state actor and *even* if terror in the general population is a side effect. (I'm less inclined, for example, to view an attack on a military base or ship as an attack of terrorism.) If one is attacking with the primary objective of instilling fear, that's at least a necessary precondition for something to be terrorism. (Arguably, Nazi reprisal killings during WW2 were acts of terrorism, at least in this respect.) The more inclined one is to target innocent civilians the more apt it is to describe someone as a terrorist.

And, yes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, but inability to draw a sharp distinction between two concepts doesn't mean that the concepts shouldn't be kept distinct.

Your last question is a good one. I guess I'm saying above that there's a fair distinction to be drawn between freedom fighting and terrorism and that something that's morally justifiable isn't terrorism, so by definition, terrorism can't ever be a justifiable response. But, I'll be less evasive. In situations in which a group is suffering grave injustices, I believe that it may be morally permissible for them to commit acts that would be considered terrorism if performed by those not suffering the injustices. The extent to which it's morally justifiable depends on the extent to which it was their only recourse and the extent to which they minimized their actions to the extent possible.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

True, that's war by other means and is a side of war that doesn't always get a lot of emphasis in the history books. My view on terrorism is that it would be most justifiable if the side that represses the other has indicated that there is no possibility of negotiations.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

But I would venture with a naive interpretation of mine. I think the distinction is that a terrorist intentionally targets civilians. A freedom fighter contrives only to attack agents and facilities of the government against which they are fighting, and only fights when all fair legal means have been exhausted.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The other side of that question is that what does this mean about strategic bombing and other such methods of conventional warfare designed explicitly to target civilians? I think I may add that as question #3....

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

A thought-provoking post, yes.

>> 1) What do you see as the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

One defines the target and tactical goal. The other defines the overall objective of the tactical choices. One can be a freedom fighter terrorist. (Well for one, if you kill the people who you are trying to free or if you hit the wrong targets, not only are they an idiot, they will also be terrorists.)

>> 2) Is there ever a case where you personally would see terrorism as a justifiable response to a political-military situation?

No. (As in: This is 2011. I expect people to be educated. So no.)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) That's a sensible way to look at it.

2) Which is also a sensible way to look at it.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

To try to make a distinction is false.

Terrorism speaks to means and methodology, where as freedom-fighting refers to the ends being sought.

The Palestinians involved in activities against Israel have been freedom-fighters who use terrorism to try to achieve their aim.

Personally I think Palestinian terrorist efforts are only to be expected, given the powerlessness of the position they have been put into and Israel's military might, but are nonetheless immoral and misguided.

Sometimes however, there is no moral choice.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is also a sensible way to look at the difference between the two. And unfortunately that last sentence has a bit too much truth in it.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I consider it terrorism when you kill innocent people.

If you are targeting occupying military forces it is legitimate resistance, but when you strap a bomb to yourself and murder civilians...that is when it becomes terrorism. Even worse, when you kill your own country's citizens... There is no moral justification for what is ongoing in Iraq or Afghanistan...it is murder, plain and simple.

And terrorism does not always aim to attain freedom. Sometimes it is meant to gain quite the opposite: becoming a dictator.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's a good point also, and the method certainly worked for Hitler and Mussolini. And for that matter you could also put the Ba'ath in Iraq in that category given how they took over from the monarchy.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

The end is irrelevant, as is the relation of the actors to a recognized state: terrorism is about choice of targets and strategy.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post and responses.

1. The difference I see is that terrorism means "freedom from" while freedom-fighting is "freedom for". What for? it could be liberation from an occupier or an historically oppressive regime, such as the revolts in Cazechoslovakia and Hungary against the USSR, or the resistance in Tianamen square. While for terrorism, freedom from certain ethnic minorities or a perceived oppressor can be a motivation, such as muslim jihad or nazi-ism in Europe.
2. I personally don't. The kind of junta-commando terrorism against defenseless people is usually just narco-terrorism under a false political pretense.
3. The dichotomy doesn't really apply to wars, in which bombing is seen as a retaliatory response unless it is unprovoked aggression inviting retaliation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) So one would be negative freedom and the other positive freedom? That's an interesting dichotomy and makes some sense also. As the more positive variation generally assumes the other side's not the willingness to get nastier, where terrorism kind of takes that for granted as part of the whole methods.

2) I think I see what you mean with that but could you clarify this sentence for me?

3) Is there a reason you'd say this? As terrorizing enemy populations is rather an ancient method of warfare that resurged in the 20th Century with a vengeance. There is a degree at which "legitimate" methods like that become indistinguishable from the non-state version save that it's states behind it.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

1) I agree with those who have said that the difference lies in motive. A freedom fighter fights against oppression and injustice, for the good (and the freedom) of the people. The terrorist fights to create a climate of fear, suspicion and suffering that turns people against each other, destroys communities and makes it impossible to maintain a civil, law abiding, tolerant society.
For the freedom fighter, drastic action is carried out for the specific purpose of defeating the enemies of freedom. For the terrorist, the action is mean spirited mayhem, terror for its own sake.
2) I see terrorism as a weapon that is toxic, something that corrupts everyone it touches. There may be extreme cases where it may be the only way of achieving the strategic objective. It cannot be ruled out.
3) They aren't really the same thing, in my view. Strategic bombing is an escalation of conventional warfare. It's not really terrorism. Counter partisan sweeps are aimed at defeating an armed adversary.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

1) The problem with your definition is that your qualities are arbitrary and subjective. Who defines oppression and injustice? There's plenty of Tea Partiers who will take your definition as justifying blowing up government buildings.

2) How is that any different than war?

3) So the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki were acts of terror?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

1) What do you see as the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Who wins and writes the history, or what side your news agency is on.

2) Is there ever a case where you personally would see terrorism as a justifiable response to a political-military situation?

Yes, those fighting the invaders in Afghanistan are pretty justified. To call someone who is defending their homeland from someone not from there a terrorist is outrageous IMO.

3) If the difference is defined as one targets civilians, but the other doesn't what differentiates the terrorist from the conventional military strategies that deliberately target civilians, like strategic bombing or counterpartisan sweeps?

That's a silly way to define it.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The Taliban wants to subjugate and intimidate the population, to terrorize them, if you will. Hey, if the show fits ...

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Diagnosing a particular patient as either a terrorist or freedom-fighter would involve the condition under investigation satisfying some number of attributes out of a given list. That is, they may or may not be the same; as long as they satisfy the diagnostic criteria in (let's say) 4 categories.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Neither. They did not want to target civilians directly or see it as necessary because that would have only strengthened the Apartheid regime's propaganda with valid examples. And I think that your distinction is key that while it is sometimes a necessary evil, it is never a positive good and even when a necessary evil it is in fact *an* evil.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

We'll just call them violent anti-establishment people and be done with it.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Thought-provoking post, and some of the responses were amazing. Kudos.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

"What do you see as the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?"

Whether or not they win.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

What are they winning?

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of this conversation from Shogun between Blackthorne and Toranaga:

"Tsukku-san says that these 'Dutchlands' - the Netherlands - were vassals of the Spanish king up to a few years ago. Is that true?"

"Yes."

"Therefore, the Netherlands – your allies – are in a state of rebellion against their lawful king?"

"They’re fighting against the Spaniard, yes, but –"

"Isn’t that rebellion? Yes or no?"

"Yes. But there are mitigating circumstances. Serious miti-"

"There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord."

"Unless you win."

Toranaga looked intently at him. Then laughed uproariously. He said something to Hiro-matsu through his laughter and Hiro-matsu nodded.

“Yes, Mister Foreigner with the impossible name, yes. You named the one mitigating factor."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, given that the historical basis of Toranaga, Tokugawa Ieyasu *was* a successful rebel who'd hitched himself to two other successful rebels.....