one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighte

[Reuben]

And as for being a terrorist, well I hate to use a cliché but one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

having seen this posted in a current thread and by no means for the first time i feel that it is time to take issue with this statement.

Basicall the statement suggests that the definition of someone as a terrorist is purely subjective. In other words it depends simly on what a person thinks and whose side their on.

The implication that can then be made is that it doesn't matter if your tactics are such that you could be defined as a terrorist, or that if you are on the right side you are not a terrorist. (i remember the position being put forward that if the cause of suicide bombs was just then they did not count as terrorism).

This position is rubbish
Terrorism is a means not an ends. A method can be of a terroritst nature regardless of its objectives. Moreover - although the definition of terrorist is constantly negotiated - one can identify certain key features of a terrorist act regardless of ones perspective or opinions:

- Most significantly terrorism as a definition, tends to be associated with acts which which involve targetting civilians. In this sense a suicide bomb on a jerusalem bus crowded with civilians is a terrorist act whether your sypathies are with the israelies or if like me you are a supporter of the palestinians.

- Anther aspect, or way of defining terrorism, is that it is not about siezing political power through mass action but through limited conspiratorial organisations attacking symbols of oppressive power - ie key individuals. THe point is that ruling class power does rest in individuals who may be shot or even buildings that may be blown up. It rests in strucutures andmachinery of the state, and ownership of the means of production. Thus the assassiantion of alexander the third by russian social revolutionaries achieved ery little since the tsarist state that was still fully in tact and could pass on the crown to the next monarch. What did finally bring down Tsarism was the mass action of the oppressed.

The point here is that even if terrorism is done in the name of something that has our sympathies, its consequences may well be unjustifiable and it will achieve very little in terms of social progress:

What do you think people?

[fernando]

I think what they meant to say with "somebody's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter" is US mentality. The US has supported terrorists, but then just calls them freedom fighters because they are pro US.


What did finally bring down Tsarism was the mass action of the oppressed.


Werent the Tsars brought down by the Russian Revolution? If so...that was a rebellion of a small group, not all the people on the streets sieging the Tsar's palace and well...you know the drill..kill them.

[Wenty]

I think they're two different things. Terrorists commit acts of terror. I think Che can be called a freedom fighter, do you think he would approve of the terrorist acts seen in abundance these days?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:55 AM
I think they're two different things. Terrorists commit acts of terror. I think Che can be called a freedom fighter, do you think he would approve of the terrorist acts seen in abundance these days?
Well see this leads back to the quote, many would call che a terriost btu we see him as a freedom fighter.

Remember Mandella was consider a terriost and i wonder how many of the people on this site would of been down with the cause but not mandella since he was a "terriost".

[Kez]

Well, was Che a terrorist?

Had he had the masses support, the Cuban government would have had complete democracy, as it wouldnt be an elite who would be pushing the way forward, rather it would be the masses

However, it is important to recognise that the revolution was only victorious after the general strike in havana, which signalled the end for Batista, so its a bit hazy to whether Che was a terrorist.

I think if you dont have the support of the masses, u can be called a terrorist. Here we see the difference between Lenin and his brother, while his brother bombed the King, Lenin got the people to overthrow the King. The former being a terrorist

[h&s]

Well, was Che a terrorist?

Had he had the masses support, the Cuban government would have had complete democracy, as it wouldnt be an elite who would be pushing the way forward, rather it would be the masses

However, it is important to recognise that the revolution was only victorious after the general strike in havana, which signalled the end for Batista, so its a bit hazy to whether Che was a terrorist.

I think if you dont have the support of the masses, u can be called a terrorist. Here we see the difference between Lenin and his brother, while his brother bombed the King, Lenin got the people to overthrow the King. The former being a terrorist
If you read Guerilla Warfare Che denounces terrorism with contempt.
As for the old saying "one persons terrorist"etc, by terorist it can mean that a government condems a fighter as a terrorist to gain support when really he is a freedom fighter.
Its like Bush denouncing those who attack troops in Iraq as terrorists, when attacks on troops aren't terrorism, they are war.
Also, by bombing the King Lenins brother would be comminting war, not terrorism.

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.


This is the definition as given by the CIA!

[h&s]

I also found this on the CIA website:

Terrorism FAQs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?

No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.


What BULLSHIT!

[Reuben]

Originally posted by comrade neonate+Jun 7 2004, 11:18 AM--> (comrade neonate @ Jun 7 2004, 11:18 AM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 10:55 AM
I think they're two different things. Terrorists commit acts of terror. I think Che can be called a freedom fighter, do you think he would approve of the terrorist acts seen in abundance these days?
Well see this leads back to the quote, many would call che a terriost btu we see him as a freedom fighter.

Remember Mandella was consider a terriost and i wonder how many of the people on this site would of been down with the cause but not mandella since he was a "terriost". [/b]
the point of my post was not that everybody who is considered a terrorist is one. Of course that would be the case. My point was that it is not purely a matter of opinion.

the poiint his that his actions were part of a mass based political struggle

[James]

I think if you dont have the support of the masses, u can be called a terrorist.


I disagree with what is being infered here.
No - if you are a terrorist, you are a terrorist. The ends does not justify the means blah blah blah.

[Kurai Tsuki]

See my thread, "Concerning Terrorism," linked in my signature.

It gives facts without slogans.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:31 AM
- Most significantly terrorism as a definition, tends to be associated with acts which which involve targetting civilians.
In the Second World War, the Allies deliberately targetted heavily populated civilian targets - cities like Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki - for the purpose of trying to demoralise the enemy's armed forces. The Nazis also did this, for example in Coventry.

Are these acts terrorism? Are they justifiable acts of war?



In this sense a suicide bomb on a jerusalem bus crowded with civilians is a terrorist act whether your sypathies are with the israelies or if like me you are a supporter of the palestinians.

Like Reuben, I also don't agree with the tactic of the suicide bomb as used in Palestine. However, what right do we have to speak down from our soapboxes on a people who are so desperate that will use any means at their disposal to bring attention, if nothing more, to their plight?

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 7 2004, 02:54 PM
I also found this on the CIA website:

Terrorism FAQs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?

No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.


What BULLSHIT!
Yes, that's a load of shit. It's amazing how much the government tries to lie, when everyone knows that they're lying. When I saw that on the CIA's website, I must say I laughed my ass off. Do they seriously expect people to believe in that? Well I'm sure the right-wingers will who are pro-Bush, heh.

[DaCuBaN]

one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Cliche as it may be, it's still perfectly valid. Indeed your opinion of the 'terrorist' is entirely subjective.

In other words, to call one the other (or vice versa) is utter rubbish. Quite simply violence in any form should not be tolerated - no matter the means.

This cliche also falls hand in hand with this:


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

On it's own, this again is perfectly valid, but when take into context with the previous quote, it's an assertion that innocent people can die in the name of an 'idea' - and this is quite justifiable

I think not.

[redstar2000]

I think this is a very difficult question for us and a very easy one for our enemies.

To them, any opposition to their rule is either "terrorist" (if violent) or "potentially terrorist" (if non-violent).

Anything that they do in defense of their power and wealth is "not terrorist" by definition...regardless of who they imprison, torture, or kill.

For us, it's far more complicated.

What kind of violence? Against who? For what purpose? And will it be effective?

For example...

1. Crashing passenger jets into the Twin Towers.

2. U.S. imperialism

3. To force U.S. withdrawal from the Muslim world in general and "Saudi" Arabia in particular.

4. No...at least not so far.

Or consider suicide bombings...

1. Blowing oneself up in an area where military and/or civilian "enemy personnel" will be injured or killed.

2. Israeli imperialism.

3. To force permanent Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

4. No...at least not so far.

Or how about selective assassination of prominent members of the ruling elite?

1. Killing prominent (notorious) members of the ruling elite.

2. The ruling elite.

3. To arouse mass resistance against the ruling elite.

4. It's hard to think of any positive examples; the results have been mostly negative.

It would seem that violence, at least against persons, that doesn't enjoy serious support among the masses of people doesn't accomplish very much.

Which brings us to active resistance movements, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those folks may target military personnel, their civilian associates, or native collaborators with the occupation.

Are they "terrorists"?

Then so was George Washington! ;)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Matty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:45 PM

one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Cliche as it may be, it's still perfectly valid. Indeed your opinion of the 'terrorist' is entirely subjective.
A terrorist is seperated by a freedom fighter because he TARGETS civilians. For example, a military campaign which targets buildings and kills innocents in the progress is NOT terrorism. However, if a military campaign targets civilians deliberately, like the bomb-o-grams in Vietnam, that is terrorist.
A terrorist can still be a freedom fighter depending on their goal, but a terrorists means are less honourable.

[Matty]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 7 2004, 02:54 PM
I also found this on the CIA website:

Terrorism FAQs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?

No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.


What BULLSHIT!
No they never had relationships with Ossama. They only had relationships with the Taliban and Al Queda. :P

[fernando]

No but back then Bin Laden, and his followers were freedom fighters, not terrorists :P

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Matty+Jun 8 2004, 07:25 AM--> (Matty @ Jun 8 2004, 07:25 AM)
hammer&[email protected] 7 2004, 02:54 PM
I also found this on the CIA website:

Terrorism FAQs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?

No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.


What BULLSHIT!
No they never had relationships with Ossama. They only had relationships with the Taliban and Al Queda. :P [/b]
Good point, thats why they say Osama and not Taliban and al-queadan since the didnt deal with him dirrectly.

[Reuben]

Quite simply violence in any form should not be tolerated - no matter the means.

what an idiotic statement.
if a US backed military coup happened in venezuuela would you suggest it would be resisted without arms. Do you think that Castro should have tried to reseist batista peacefully, do you think the uprisings in warsaw against the Nazis should have been carried out without violence???

[Reuben]

Originally posted by CiaranB+Jun 7 2004, 06:48 PM--> (CiaranB @ Jun 7 2004, 06:48 PM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 10:31 AM
- Most significantly terrorism as a definition, tends to be associated with acts which which involve targetting civilians.
In the Second World War, the Allies deliberately targetted heavily populated civilian targets - cities like Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki - for the purpose of trying to demoralise the enemy's armed forces. The Nazis also did this, for example in Coventry.

Are these acts terrorism? Are they justifiable acts of war?
[/b]
Could you explain how these examples make my position on, and definiition of, terrorism untennable? Quite clearly the main purpose of these raids was to target civilian populations (in dresden key militray targets ie the railway station I believe were left untouched). Thus these were clearly acts of terrorism.

Whats your point?

The fact the non-terrorist acts acts may be described as terrorist and visa-versa by imperialist governments does not in itself contradict my point that we on the left should seek to diffentiate.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:48 PM
Like Reuben, I also don't agree with the tactic of the suicide bomb as used in Palestine. However, what right do we have to speak down from our soapboxes on a people who are so desperate that will use any means at their disposal to bring attention, if nothing more, to their plight?
As a Palestinian, I find this utter cop-out that's been floating around on the Left for years to be insulting and degrading to our plight. We are not children without a sense of right and wrong, and we are capable of the same kinds of actions western movements can take.

If you're not gonna get on that soapbox and help guide the Palestinian movement away from the wrong path many have taken, then quit your attempts to change the world right now. We are internationalists, just like you, and these actions taken against civilians are wrong. Quit giving our elite and religious fanatics a carte-blanche. Have a spine, give your opinion and support those who want to fight properly against Capitalism and Israeli State Colonialism in the Middle East in solidarity with our Israeli comrades.

No war between peoples, no peace between classes. None of these cop-outs please.

[Matty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:48 PM
In the Second World War, the Allies deliberately targetted heavily populated civilian targets - cities like Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki - for the purpose of trying to demoralise the enemy's armed forces. The Nazis also did this, for example in Coventry.

Are these acts terrorism? Are they justifiable acts of war?
Yes, they are indeed terrorism, but in that case the ends justified the means-unlike Islamic terror today.