Jump to content

Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter?


Lannan13
 Share

Recommended Posts

When it comes to the debate of terrorism and what is permitted I've come to the question, What is the difference between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter? The view can easily be subjective. An example can be famous Abolitionist John Brown. John Brown had helped led the fight in Bleeding Kansas to the point where he killed pro-slavery Kansans. He is more famously known due to his seige of Harper's Ferry. This is where John Brown, and several others, captured a Federal Arms depot and where going to use the arms in the depot, give them to the southern slaves, and start a slave revolt in the South. This may be viewed as an act of horrendous terror to some, though when it comes to others on the topic they promote him as a hero. Someone who had fought, died for what he believed in, and made a change in doing it. 

 

Here's another one, Robespierre, for those of you who are not familiar with European history, he was the revolutionary leader of France during the French Revolution and headed the Reign of Terror. You might think with a name like, The Reign of Terror, he must be an obvious terrorist, but we must look further into this point. At the time France was under going massive change. They were attempting to prevent any counter-revolutionaries from rising up and would execute anyone who spoke out against the revoluntion. This was via the guillotine where people would loose their heads, litterally, for speaking out against the state. Though this measure had helped the state make massive transitions that would later again be seen in the Principle of Paris post Napolean III, but Robespierre, himself, would be executed for failing to release the names of more traitors of the state that he was to release the following day. 

 

Another group would be the Chinese Rightous Fists of Harmony, also known as the Boxers. They had attempted to repel foreign influence from China by attacking foreign powers, embassies, and other nationals within the Chinese nation. To Asians they could be seen as revoluntionaries who were attempting to free China from foreign domination and bring China to the power it once had. While the Europeans could see the group as terrorists who were senselessly attacking Europeans who were offering them a better way of life for no reason. Almost savagelike.

 

So my question to you, Politics and War, is who do you classify as a terrorist and a Freedom Fighter, and why?

  • Upvote 2

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorist-Bad guys

Freedom fighter-Vigilantie

Basically if they kill innocent people they're terrorists, if there a vilonet group that doesn't massacre civilians they're freedom fighters

  • Upvote 1

Gary Johnson 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorist-Bad guys

Freedom fighter-Vigilantie

Basically if they kill innocent people they're terrorists, if there a vilonet group that doesn't massacre civilians they're freedom fighters

Then the US is the bad guys right? Bueno Vista US troops slaughter innocent lives. What about the torture of Iraqis? How about the war of attrition against the South in the Civil War and how many people they killed. What about the trail of tears? I could go on.

  • Upvote 2

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many did 'freedom fighter' Nelson Mandela kill in his terrorist attacks in SA. How much damage did 'freedom fighters' suffragettes create for equal rights. How many people did various 'terrorist' muslim groups kill?

Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the US is the bad guys right? Bueno Vista US troops slaughter innocent lives. What about the torture of Iraqis? How about the war of attrition against the South in the Civil War and how many people they killed. What about the trail of tears? I could go on.

all but the trail of tears have a motive, the only motive terriosts have is hatred.

Gary Johnson 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all but the trail of tears have a motive, the only motive terriosts have is hatred.

The Natives won several Court Cases at all levels, so legally The Natives were in the right. Andrew Jackson must have been full of hate. 

Edited by Lannan13
  • Upvote 1

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Natives won several Court Cases at all levels, so legally The Natives were in the right. Andrew Jackson must have been full of hate.

 

ALL BUT, Andrew Jackson was insane, and in no way should've ever been given power

Gary Johnson 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL BUT, Andrew Jackson was insane, and in no way should've ever been given power

By this you are saying that the US was a terrorist state at the time. 

Only the path of history will make the final decision but there is a relatively reliable short-term test, which is to ask people not directly involved in the conflict what they think.

I can quite agree. I think Saul D Alinsky said it best when he said the difference was who won. 

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

use the word the terrorist for anyone you don't like. Che Guevara can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter

Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

use the word the terrorist for anyone you don't like. Che Guevara can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter

He could be a freedom fighter since he teamed up to fight against Bautista in Cuba or he could be seen as a terrorist since he helped bring a terrible man to power. 

Note, that I'm not really anti-American, I'm just challenging your statements Redael.

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slightly anti american and congress is basically corrupt. However i do slightly feel my government, UK, is slightly better

Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slightly anti american and congress is basically corrupt. However i do slightly feel my government, UK, is slightly better

Vote David Cameron.

Vote David Cameron.

Don't forget Ms. Thatcher.

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally i will vote Corbyn as my family are historically labour voters but my dad voted Tories last time

  • Upvote 1

Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could be a freedom fighter since he teamed up to fight against Bautista in Cuba or he could be seen as a terrorist since he helped bring a terrible man to power. 

Note, that I'm not really anti-American, I'm just challenging your statements Redael.

That's not a challenge if you say COULD be OR, a challenge would be picking the side agianst me.

Note- yes i just challenged your claim that you were challenging me.

Gary Johnson 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom fighter refers to motive.

 

Terrorist refers to methodology.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a challenge if you say COULD be OR, a challenge would be picking the side agianst me.

Note- yes i just challenged your claim that you were challenging me.

Nice use of semantics.

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that wasn't a challenge, I won;

You may have challanged, but it wasn't an acceptance on my part. Thus there wasn't an actual debate there. Your point is invalid.

 

In all seriousness though, stop derailing the thread.

Edited by Lannan13

Tiocfaidh ár lá

=Censored by Politics and War Moderation team=

 

s6McZGm.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of ''Is this terror group legitimate'' is one that I'm not prepared to give a report on right now, but there's one important distinction within terror groups that I make:

 

Does this group intentionally slaughter civilians?

 

If a terror group targets government facilities- post offices, fort, armories, police stations, legislative buildings, etc, then I think that's a bit more morally acceptable. Of course, it still comes back to rather or not the rebellion is morally justified at all, but at least you can't say they're 100% immoral in their practices- I'd even going as far to say that even if non-combatants are killed (because they're government-employees, and collateral damage is inevitable).

 

It's the different why I think the Continental Army under George Washington was righteous, and the Free Syrian Army isn't.

  • Upvote 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FSA aren't killing civilians. they are protecting them from cluster bombs filled with chlorine and sarin

Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.