Will you be a freedom fighter or a terrorist ?

Hi guys just playing with a personal ideal here.

To me a freedom fighter is someone prepared to take on TPTB and lay down his/her life for the freedom of the people, without targeting the civilian population in so far as possible, colateral damage is inevitable. If said freedom fighter chooses to hide amongst family and friends and willingly put them in danger without their knowledge then he/she must take responsibility for said actions and the opposing force is absolved from guilt in deaths resulting from the hunt.

A terrorist willingly targets TPTB (no problem with that) and by way of making a point will bomb without discression innocent civilians women and children.

So my question is. In a civil war situation at what point would you cease to be a freedom fighter and become a terrorist in the eyes of your peers and then in your own mind ? For example in the possible upcoming 2nd American civil war, is it acceptable for the sake of your rights to shoot an unarmed friend or neighbour that comes to take your weapons from you? Sure if some armed group of government goons rock up to force you to the same means attack is the best form of defence.

Just playing with an idea
Peace
But where is the line ?

In my opinion, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist depends on who wins the struggle.
The winners write the history.

reply to post by Beartracker16
Hence christianity?
The losers also write a history. It just takes a few hundred years to find where they hid it.

...and both sides tend to write their own self-serving propaganda in the heat of things. War is a place where truth is a stranger.

I'd term a terrorist in general as someone who kills non-combatants by design to achieve political or other similar outcome.

In a personal sense, a terrorist is someone who gets civilians killed in war ...which happens in war to everyone actually fighting if anyone is fair, IMO.......and is either neutral about it or actually thinks it's a good thing. The freedom fighter gets civilians killed entirely by unintended consequence and has a hard time living with it. That would be the difference, in my thinking.

it is in the eye of the beholder

the american colonists were terrorists to the redcoats. they fired directly on officers from behind a tree !!!!

I'd term a terrorist in general as someone who kills non-combatants by design to achieve political or other similar outcome.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

So much more eloquent than I thankyou.
However in a civil war situation do the lines become more blurred ?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


If you have to cheat to win................ damned unenglish of them !

I believe the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" lies on which side you happen to be fighting for. Take the war in iraq, for example. For all extensive purposes, the enemies over there are "terrorists" who will stop at nothing to murder our troops. On the other hand, accourding to them, they are "freedom fighters" whi will stop at nothing to rid their country of the hostile invaders (us).

All it is, is a matter of perspective. In my book, there is no good, and no evil..... Only 2 different viewpoints which contradict eachother.... 2 viewpoints that people are willing to pay for in blood to show that their way, was the right way.

That being said, terrorist or freedom fighter, it doesnt matter what im labeled, what matters is that i fight for what i believe in, and making sure that no one who doesnt threaten myself, or my loved ones, get caught in the crossfire.

EDIT: Remember, if you own guns, ammo, batteries, and over a 7 day supply of food, the DHS already considers you an "Extreme right wing domestic terrorist". Hahaha, gotta love that

For all extensive purposes, the enemies over there are "terrorists" who will stop at nothing to murder our troops.

reply to post by dothedew


Please read the OP carefully troops are acceptable as targets.
I was one. I made the choice to be in that position, the kids killed in the next bomb did not.

reply to post by cody599


Are the Palestinian militants terrorists or freedom fighters?

No matter how you look at it, in any case where violence is used, or advocated to achieve a collective goal it is entirely a matter of personal perspective.

So the actual answer is, that you are potentially both a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

Take up arms against a tyrannical government, advocate violence against them, and/or attempt to incite others to participate in it, and to them, you'll only be one thing; A high priority target.

Originally posted by ausername
reply to post by cody599

 

Are the Palestinian militants terrorists or freedom fighters?

No matter how you look at it, in any case where violence is used, or advocated to achieve a collective goal it is entirely a matter of personal perspective.

So the actual answer is, that you are potentially both a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

Take up arms against a tyrannical government, advocate violence against them, and/or attempt to incite others to participate in it, and to them, you'll only be one thing; A high priority target.

Ahhhhhhhh here come the Israel haters
read the OP please the Palistinians that faced me as a freedom fighters whilst I was in uniform are truly freedom fighters and all respect to them
The cowards that launched a thousand missiles at the civilian population and hid in the population , schools and mosques are terrorists

Originally posted by cody599

For all extensive purposes, the enemies over there are "terrorists" who will stop at nothing to murder our troops.

reply to post by dothedew

 

Please read the OP carefully troops are acceptable as targets.
I was one. I made the choice to be in that position, the kids killed in the next bomb did not.

I made the choice to be in that position, the kids killed in the next bomb did not

Whether you are a freedom figther or a terrorist.If you choose to hide among non-combatans YOU put them at risk.If they are killed by your enemy it is on your shoulders.

reply to post by cody599


I agree, i was simply stating that for arguments' sake. There are horrible acts of violence carried out by their "freedom fighters". And ours as well. Our drone strikes cause more collateral damage than most would like to believe. It just matters to which side your on, as to whether actions are justifiable or not.

The line between what constitutes a terrorist and what constitutes a “freedom fighter” is defined by the state not by what "you" might think the defnitions are.

I am not usually one to go advertising my own threads but I wrote this last year that discusses these issues in quite some depth. I wrote it because of the way the word “terrorism” is used on ATS, feel free to read it is very pertinent to this thread as it addresses the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist and highlights the problem with the OPs definitions.

Defining Terrorism

reply to post by cody599


The line has been drawn. It's important to know where you stand. So I just roll with their labels and waste no time with them.

The line between what constitutes a terrorist and what constitutes a “freedom fighter” is defined by the state not by what "you" might think the defnitions are

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Only if you allow it to.
If you think for yourself you may find the answer is different

Will you be a freedom fighter or a terrorist ?

Depends on who's writing my biography, or my obituary.

reply to post by cody599


No if you are a law abiding citizen then the definition of terrorism is dictated by the state depending on where you live.

Your perception of what is and is not a terrorist may be different to what the state says it is but at the end of the day it is the state who decides who is and is not a terrorist.

So for example I am subject to British law, therefore the definition of terrorist that is relevant to me is as set out in the Terrorism Act (2000), if you are American it will come under American law.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Thank you for posting that. I'm driving home from work right now and don't want to read while I drive, so I will read the thread and post as soon as I get a chancei.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by cody599

 

No if you are a law abiding citizen then the definition of terrorism is dictated by the state depending on where you live.

Your perception of what is and is not a terrorist may be different to what the state says it is but at the end of the day it is the state who decides who is and is not a terrorist.

So for example I am subject to British law, therefore the definition of terrorist that is relevant to me is as set out in the Terrorism Act (2000), if you are American it will come under American law.

That's one dodgy act.
I still say the state has no say in my definition. As a Brit you support by your tax; known terrorists that are illegal immigrants and given free housing and benefits.
As you say you are subject to British law as am I. But my mind isn't.