Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

[Arvedui]

Once there was country, a democracy even, let's call it Oblivia. In Oblivia there lived people of different ethnicities. In one of the provinces, let's call it Pitya, the majority of the population belonged to a different religion and ethnicity than the majority of the population in that country as a whole.
Pitya was governed from the capital of Oblivia. And the government of Oblivia had a way of governing the country as a whole, and thus first of all seeing to the needs of Oblivians. Therefore, the Pityans in Pitya were not allowed to rule in their own province.
As a reaction, two movements were started in Pitya, both with the same goal: An independant Pitya. One of the movements wanted to reach that goal by peaceful means, the other movemnt took to arms. The armed movement soon established a secret guerilla movement called The Liberation Army of Pitya.
Pitya was a rather poor province. It had some but few natural resouces, which were exploited by the Oblivian government, to bring money into the country, to the benefit of all. One of the major resouces was a huge coal-mine. In connection to that coal-mine, two power-plants were established, bringing electricity to the province. Therefore, the coal-mine was of vital importance to the Oblivian government, especially concerned about the growing unrest in Pitya.
The actions of the Liberation Army of Pitya (LAP) was beginning to be felt among the Oblivian population in Pitya. Persons were harassed and some people even dissapeared and was never found again. To counter that, the Oblivian govenment increased the numbers of police-officers in Pitya.
The whole situation was becoming rather untolerable for the Oblivian govenment, and when two police-officers on duty were shot and killed, the government decided that enough was enough.

My question is: Would you consider the Liberation Army of pitya to be terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

My beliefe is that they are terrorists. They take up arms against the elected rulers of their own country, and try to bring about a new rule in their region. A rule were they would be ruling themselves.
Some people I know, consider the LAP to be freedom Fighters.
Now I want to have the opinion of you people in this Forum.

Those who think they know me, may feel that there is a snag here somewhere. Well, those who wait, will see....

[Gloer]

TEST 1

Year 1930

Oblivia = Great Britain
Pitya = India

Mahatma Gandhi used passive resistance and condemned agression. He is greatly appresiated and revered in history for this feat. In this scenario the LAP is a terrorist group compared to Gandhi.


TEST 2

Year 1776

Oblivia = England
Pitya = The Thirteen Colonies in America

George Washington was leading an armed militia against the English army. There is a difference since Washingtons militia was strong enough to confront and defeat the English in open battle. The Colonies were strong enough to fight for freedom. This leads to a question weather freedom fight is only acceptable if you are strong enough to achieve it. On the otherhand weak should not use aggression since it is ineffective and therefore mere terror and anarchy is resulting.

TEST 3

Year 1991
Oblivia = Soviet Union, Russia
Pitya = Baltic states, Chechenya

Dzohar Dudajev served as the commander of the Soviet troops in the Baltic region in August 1991. That was the time when the communists attempted coup d'état and were resisted by Yeltsin. At the same time the three Baltic states declared independence. Everyone expected Soviet troops to move in like in Moscow. Dudajev ordered the troops to stay in barracks. There was very little fighting, but it clear that without momentary collapse of central military command Dudajev could not have used his own judgement. Russian troops would have easily won. In this scenario the Baltic states were not strong enough to become independent and possible fighters would have been terrorists.


Year 1994
Oblivia = Russian federation
Pitya = Chechenya

A minority representative Dudajev later became the first president of the independent Chechenya. Independence was not acknowledged by Russia and Russia sent troops to the country. So far there has been resistance but it seems to be that Chechens have no strength to win a military victory. Should they be called terrorists for using violent methods when they should understand that they are not strong enough for that?



Conclusion: aggressive defense for ones cause is dependant on the relative strength to achieve victory. In the Baltics a simple declaration was enough since Soviet army was momentarily paralyzed. In America the colonies felt that they were strong enough, and they were. In India, gandhi knew they were not strong enough and he desided passive protest was better, and it was.

In Chechenya, poor Chechens! Their best man, Dudajev, was in the wrong place at the right time for them! Chechenya was too late to declare independence, Russian federation had already regained military command. I admit that they put up a good fight and the outcome was not certain since Russians are sometimes fickle.

[Eriol]

Terrorists attack innocent by-standers, civilians, deliberately, to create terror (no wonder they are called terrorists). Freedom fighters attack the troops of the opressing army. An innocent civilian would have nothing to fear from them. I would define them by their targets, not by the use of violence per se.

[Athelas]

I've even heard some people suggest that the 9/11 terrorists were "freedom fighters." No one so far has done so to my face, which is fortunate, since I would hate to violate my parole.:cool:

[Rangerdave]

Ah yes, It is once again time for good ole Rangerdave to get up on his soapbox and promulgate all sorts of political drivel that no-one in his or her right mind gives a tinker’s dam about.

To say that the instigators of the attacks on September the eleventh were “Freedom Fighters” is grossly incorrect. This gives them the illusion that the are actually fighting to free an oppressed minority. A concept, which even in their own propaganda, they do not mention.

But to say that these criminals are (were) "terrorists" is also incorrect. Terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism as a political weapon; "
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weaponThe use of the term “terrorist” would imply that the Muslim fundamentalists who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center and spilled the blood of so many innocent non-combatants did so to further a political cause. Specifically, that this attack was meant to force the American Government to either change or eliminate policies regarding the Middle East. This is simply not the case.

The intent of the attacks of September the eleventh were not politically motivated, or even theologically motivated for that matter. These attacks were the result of one charismatic, but hate filled, megalomaniac’s desire to destroy: not an oppressive government, but rather a society that he finds in opposition to his own twisted sense of morality. Bin Laden’s aim is not to destroy the American Government, but to destroy the American social dynamic.

A dispassionate view analysis would lead one to label the actual combatants aboard the hijacked aircraft as either anarchists or perhaps nihilists. But the only label that truly fits these men and their delusional leader are the terms Criminal, Murderer and villain.





End of rant.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled forum already in progress.

RD

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Eriol
Terrorists attack innocent by-standers, civilians, deliberately, to create terror (no wonder they are called terrorists). Freedom fighters attack the troops of the opressing army. An innocent civilian would have nothing to fear from them. I would define them by their targets, not by the use of violence per se.

By this, I take it you would use the term ' terrorists' on the organization in my example?

And RD, you might call it 'rant', but in my view, you are 100% right. Now, who should tell George W. that he is not fighting a war against terrorists?

[Eriol]

I also agree with RD on the accurate use of the word terrorism. So, if the organization in your example is targeting innocent civilians to use terror as a weapon in a political struggle, then yes they are terrorists. Freedom fighters would target military objectives (such as the power plants you mentioned), and civilian casualties would be the result of the infamous 'collateral damage'.

This still would not mean they are right. But they would be 'freedom fighters', as I see it.

I am still waiting for the snag alluded to in your first post...

[Gloer]

It is not relevant.

NATO bombed Serbia and Kosovo in 1999. The target was the economical infrastructure. Serbian military was left almost complitely unharmed.

Germany was bombed to defeat due to destruction of civil infrastructure. Allied armies never managed to achieve clearly a military victory. Bombardments like the one in Dresden that killed thousands of civillians handicapped the supply of the military.

I maintain that terrorist is a person that has no way to force his will on his opponent and he still tries to achieve it with violence.
Terrorist lacks rebuilding rationality in his violence. A terrorist can't achieve a victory and he has not enough strength to rebuild order.

[Athelas]

Whatever you call them, they still make the same stain when crushed into carrion.:D :D :D

[FREEDOM!]

On September 11th my country was attacked by terrorists.

A freedom fighter is one who fights for their freedom against an oppressive ruler.

We didn't control and oppress the Saudi's or the Afghans, therefore they are terrorists.

[Arvedui]

OK, Eriol. I suppose you'll get the snag when I continue the story:

After the killing of the police-officers, the Oblivian government acted, quick and hard. Armed police of the Ministry of Interior Affairs were sent into Pitya, together with military forces. They soon engaged the LAP in armed combat, and lacking sufficient numbers, equipment and training, the LAP was pushed back. They took to the mountains of Pitya, and hid in villages. Still they were able to make some small strikes against the Oblivian population, and also members of the Oblivian armed forces and armed police forces.
What then happened was that large numbers of Pityans were driven by force out of their homes, and into neighboring countries. A number of Pityans disappeared, many were probably shot and thrown into mass graves.
So in 1999, NATO initiated a bombing campaign to stop the attrocities committed by the Oblivian government and armed forces. Later that same year, Oblivian forces left Pitya, and NATO forces entered.

For those who still haven't figured it out:
Pitya = Kosovo
Oblivia = Serbia
LAP = UCK, or KLA as they are better known

The examples I have mentioned are actuall happenings, allthough all of them is not publisized through western media.

That means that NATO, in 1999, went to war because of internal affairs in an independant country, AND choose the side of terrorists.
How about that?

[Gloer]

Biaafra was an African country that wanted to separate from Nigeria. It was populated by Ogoni people who were christian and slightly better off than the rest of teh country. Their country was on the coast East of river Niger.

Unfortunately the 2/3 of the Nigerian population was muslim and lived inland. They went to war against biafra. That war lasted 2 years and killed millions of people. Many died of hunger.

Biafra never received support from it's natural ally Britain, nor USA. Why? Because of oil. Biafrans were better educated, urban and industrious part of Nigeria.

Totally unacceptable if one wants cheap oil.

[Eriol]

Sadly, it does not surprise me. I, for one, having lost faith on the good will of governments everywhere (including and especially the governments with power to wage war), do not think the West is above moral reproach. As I said, whether they are terrorists or freedom fighters does not mean they are right. That goes for NATO -- whether they are on the side of the terrorists or against them do not mean they are right. At the very least the old doctrine of just war should be heeded. But it has not been so for a century... no, it does not surprise me at all. I wish they had a smiley (actually, a tearley) to convey that.

[Gloer]

But it wasn't a freedom or liberty guarranteed by laws or nature.
Napoleon thought liberty depends on your strength.
The stronger one is the free'er one is. He was a freedom fighter al'a realpolitik and he fought to have the greatest liberty himself alone.

[Rogue666666]

You see, RD, that you dismissed the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists, because they only filled half the definition. They were not politically motivated (which I beliveive is debatable) and therfore were not terrorists.

Could I not like wise define them as terrorists because THEY DO fill one half of the difinition. There goal was to cuase fear. So you dimiss them as terrorists because they didn't have political motivations, but I call them terrorists, because they DID CUASE TERROR.

[Gloer]

After Petain had surrendered and signed the peace treaty there was a certain part of the population that resisted and started to terrorise the now legally ratified right of the German occupation.

These terrorists thought they could overthrow the order and return the old one. What a nonsense! They should know better.

...

What I am trying to do here is that terrorism is neccesserily a label that can onl be given by historians and after the conflict has been resolved.

Who knows - in 100 years time - what happens.

[Eriol]

I may be very wrong here, as I don't know a lot about the French Resistance and am going by what I see in movies (?), but didn't they target their attacks only on German occupation forces and (maybe) French 'turncoats' (traitors)? I don't see them attacking ordinary French civilians just to spread terror and foment a 'regime change'...

[Rogue666666]

NO, a lor of intersting people were in Paris when it was liberated. The reason Petain wanted it liberated quickly was because he feared an uprising of communist french. There was a very bad food shortage, and the city was on the verge of chaos when it was liberated. Thankfully the German commander their ignored Hitlers order that Paris be destroyed upon his retreat.

[Gloer]

This "bin Laden" of the french resistance!

There was plenty of co-operation from the civil French society. resistance did target the German troops, yes and co-operators too. But not their own. Not even the real terrorist do that.

Real terrorist being someone who is against me.
:D

[Rogue666666]

What, against Holland? Lol.

[Gloer]

If someone is against me, what is he against?

What am I in favour of?

I support:
1. disagreement

If there is someone who wants everybody to agree, then he is against me.

2. dynamic structures

If there is someone who supports a rigid structure that can not be changed, whether old one or new structure, then he is against me.