Terrorists: Serial Killers Or Freedom Fighters?

[I.T.W.B.N.O.I]

I thought it would be quite interesting to see some peoples veiws on this subject. I would also like to ask what you think terrorism means (not the dictionary version what you think) and if you think it is ever right.

[Intifada]

Killing of innocents is wrong, full stop.

However, there is no difference between what the West does, and what Al Qaeda does. The simple fact of the matter is that war is the terrorism of the rich and powerful, while terrorism is the war of the poor and weak.

People must realise that the actions being committed by Western nations, such as the US, and those being committed by the suicide bomber are simply acts of terror.

[RebelOutcast]

Yes, I agree with Intifada. War is the terrorism of the rich and powerful while things like suicide bombings are the terrorism of the poor and weak. It's not like the muslim extremists can take their B52s out and bomb America back to the stone age.

[LSD]

However, there is no difference between what the West does, and what Al Qaeda does. The simple fact of the matter is that war is the terrorism of the rich and powerful, while terrorism is the war of the poor and weak.

Of course the critical difference is that the West can afford to cover up what they do better.

What do you mean we bombed civilians? Poove it!

Plus, the US has billions going into discrediting their enemies and glorifying themselves.

There's nothing more dangerous than a terrorist with 6 network news channels...and FOX.

[Paradox]

I believe that killing innocent people is wrong, but I understand that the Palistinians believe they are fighting for the liberation of their people. The Palistinians are labeled as terrorists, yet more Palistinians have died than have Israelis. The Israelis bomb apartment complexes, hospitals, and refugee camps, yet no one dares call them terrorists. It's hypocritical. The west says that these people are terrorists and evil for using violence in the name of liberation, yet at the same time, they're bombing people over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they call themselves liberators. When innocent people are intentionally attacked, then I can understand, but the answer depends upon whose side your on. To the Israelis and amerikans, the Palistinians are terrorists. To the Palistinians, the Israelis are the terrorists. Personally, I'm down to fight, if it comes down to that. But leave the innocents out of it. Murder does not bring about liberation.

[Freedom Writer]

I like this one. (http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html)

[XYZYX]

That is a good flash.

On topic, I think that killing innocent people hurts groups causes more then it helps, because it just harbors hostility toward them regardless of their cause. I think that there are ways to get attention to your cause and hurt your opponets that does not involve killing someone who has nothing to do with the matter.

[Intifada]

Of course the critical difference is that the West can afford to cover up what they do better.

What do you mean we bombed civilians? Poove it!

Plus, the US has billions going into discrediting their enemies and glorifying themselves.

There's nothing more dangerous than a terrorist with 6 network news channels...and FOX.

That's a very good point.

[dso79]

The U.S has only partially succeeded in covering up their crimes. Sure, most Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, but they probably don't care anyway. The people in the Middle East, however, know exactly what is happening in Iraq, because they watch channels like Al-Jazeera.

[PRC-UTE]

IMO terrorism is to use violence to make someone cower into submission (shock & awe, blitz) rather than actually conquering them.

I don't support the terrorism of the headhunters or the U$

If terrorism worked in a revolutionary sense, such as bombing capitalist property, I would support it. I don't think it usually does.

[Funky Monk]

Most terrorism seems to be counter productive, taking as an example the Suffrage movement in Britain it could be argued that violent protest including arson and assualt did more to harm the cause than the opposition in Parliament.

As depressing as it is the modern "terrorist" needs to cultivate the idea of image whether through selection of target, methods or public relations. Fuck, i'm basically arguing that the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the quality of their PR people.

[Latino]

In my point of view targeting and killing inocent people is a terrorist act and to me those are not freedom fighters!

[Funky Monk]

How do you define innocent?

[Latin America]

I define innocent as children

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

Depending on the situations the majority of freedom fighters aren't terrorists but some actions can border the line between terrorism and "normal" war tattics . personally i think that terrorism is only necessary when diplomatic way doesn't not work. like in Palestine for a couple of decades they were trying to inform the world what was happening to them but the Marjory of the globe didn't here them until the beginning of the infatada. it showed that the Palestinian people where feed up living like dirt and were going to resive freedom by taking it in their own hands.

" you cant keep thinking that just because people live in the ghettos of the world or cant read or something that, that their just stupid and want to live like that and don't want to change . you cant have that fucked up mentality because it will come back at you look at what happened in Russia the Czar where living the good life while the people starved till the people couldn't take it any more used the thug life mentality and over through the royalty to establish a government for the common man and killed all the Czars . The same thing is going to happen in America and all over the world if shit don't change the only difference is that we anit just going to takeover the government and put the president in exile, the country will be destroyed and atrocity's will be made and there will be more hard times but be clear the poor man will get his by any means necessary." - Tupac

[Funky Monk]

So if a radical right wing insurgence recruits children, any opposition to them would be a terrorist act?

[DaCuBaN]

war is the terrorism of the rich and powerful, while terrorism is the war of the poor and weak

Catchy, but it doesn't work for me...

My definition of terrorism is quite simple: It is the methodolgy used to enforce a point of view that cannot be discussed in a rational manner, be it due to the irrational nature of the cause, or the persons concerned. Terrorism is war; embargo; kidnapping; assasinations; the list goes on.

Any act that involved violence or the threat of violence is terrorism - irregardless. So in fact, terrorism and war are utterly synonymous.

[Fidelbrand]

they aren't freedom fighters, but are dignity fighters in some sense.

Terrorism exists generally in 2 forms maybe (?)
1) Out of mere vandalism of lives, just to cause harms/damages or lives for no reasons, and thus of course not for the sake of justice.
2) Out of one's gut, trying to crush one's exploited situations by means of revenge on innocent lives.

1) & 2) can both include the lives of the inncocent, and on this point, I would say the terrorists are morally blamable already.

but for case 2), I tend to sympathise more on the side of the terrorists, because they are desperate to grab that bit of dignity that is being pulled away from them.
Imagine U.S. army bombing the wrong places all the time ;
carrying their infra-red guns and shout "lets kill those mutha-fuckers" and shoot their opponents in the dark with their heavily financed weapons and intelligence..........

Conclusion: I understand the terrorists' sentiments but I do not think they are right, but I think those who invade/exploit others in the 1st incidence carries a larger burden for moral blame and notoriety (spelling?).

[Latin America]

So if a radical right wing insurgence recruits children, any opposition to them would be a terrorist act? Funky Monk

What kind of radical right wing?

I believe that kids are innocents and when I talk about it I am talking about civilians as children not some how related to a specific group

[Intifada]

Catchy, but it doesn't work for me...


It wasn't really meant to be a definition of terrorism. It was to imply that the rich and powerful can justify their crimes through "war", whereas those who are weak and poor are not able to disguise their crimes.

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide explained how Western powers such as the US can hide or cover up their crimes.

The word "terrorism" has become too vague. The definition has been corrupted by those who seek to justify their actions.


Any act that involved violence or the threat of violence is terrorism - irregardless. So in fact, terrorism and war are utterly synonymous.

I agree.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:25 PM
The word "terrorism" has become too vague. The definition has been corrupted by those who seek to justify their actions.

I agree and this is the way it is.

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by Latin [email protected] 14 2004, 03:03 PM
So if a radical right wing insurgence recruits children, any opposition to them would be a terrorist act? Funky Monk

What kind of radical right wing?

I believe that kids are innocents and when I talk about it I am talking about civilians as children not some how related to a specific group
So you meant that non-aligned Children are innocents? Just wanted to clarify it.

In terms of radical insurgence we are hypothetically talking about a rebel group seeking to otherthrow the democratically elected government with the sole intention of establishing themselves in the seat of power.

[Freedom Writer]

I dont like militarism, but yes they have their reasons. Bro and dad killed, mother and daughter raped. You have been away and you find your family in this condition.. Its no suprise that you get _BIT_ angry. So I kind of hate and understand the "terrorists" at the same time. They dont have MiGs they dont have organized army.. they have nothing, only way to fight back is using "terrorist" methods.. its kind a sad. :(

I consider Putin/Bush terrorists also, they talk about someone being COWARDS?! :lol:

[Latin America]

I know what you mean Funky Monk, the objective of the revolution has to be done no matter what (probably that’s the way you see it and a lot of people see it that way too) Even though the group kidnaps the son or daughter of the democratic president or the people who work for him but the mission or the purpose of the revolution has to be accomplished! Don’t take me wrong but I feel bad for them child who died for reasons that they can not even understand but especially because of the acts of the people involve in the conflicts. But as we all know in every conflict or in every war children are going to die even thought they are not a direct target, that’s why the only thing I could say is that I feel bad for them and their families. I could say that to me non-aligned children that are killed or they specifically are an objective for a group and end up been dead, to me that is a terrorist act.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:50 PM
I thought it would be quite interesting to see some peoples veiws on this subject. I would also like to ask what you think terrorism means (not the dictionary version what you think) and if you think it is ever right.
Any act, regardless of how horrific the nature, is acceptable is it moves the reovolution forword. The only terroist act is one that slows/hinders the revolution.

[slim]

Terrorism is just extreme warfare and its hard to justify any act of war. Terrorists, serial killers, freedom fighter, heros, villians all a matter of which side of the conflict you are on. War doesn't determine who is right it determines who is left, intresting thought I read.

[The idealist]

Killing innocent civilians is impossible to justify and very difficult to excuse.
A civilian is a non-combattant, a person without ties (legal or illegal) to any armed forces.

A direct attack on an armed force cannot be deemed a terrorist act. Why the hell should it?



Let us view a theoretical conflict "Black vs White" where black is the opposition and white is the terrorists.

The aforementioned "direct attack" is just someone who want to blast the bejeezers out of the opposition alone.
Evaluation: [White attacks=> black]

Terrorists want to intimidate, harm and terrorise EVERYONE.
Evaluation: [White versus=> black + grey]


Terrorism is just extreme warfare and its hard to justify any act of war. Terrorists, serial killers, freedom fighter, heros, villians all a matter of which side of the conflict you are on. War doesn't determine who is right it determines who is left, intresting thought I read.

And right you are. Though i prefer to say that Terrorism is Terrorism. Warfare can be both warfare and terrorism at the same time.

I remember bush saying that "You are either for us or against us". This is exactly what i view as being the terrorist mentality. A terrorist has either no perception of the "Grey areas" or doesn't care about them.


Any act, regardless of how horrific the nature, is acceptable is it moves the reovolution forword. The only terroist act is one that slows/hinders the revolution.

And who shall be the judge of that? You? Me? The triumphant masses? Or the innocents who died because of a cause they may never have heard of? I am not trying to deny you your right to have that opinion, but for once try and reread your own text. Look for the humanity that isn't there. Spelling is missing too i see. Reply once you have reconsidered.


I dont like militarism, but yes they have their reasons. Bro and dad killed, mother and daughter raped. You have been away and you find your family in this condition.. Its no suprise that you get _BIT_ angry. So I kind of hate and understand the "terrorists" at the same time. They dont have MiGs they dont have organized army.. they have nothing, only way to fight back is using "terrorist" methods.. its kind a sad. :(

I consider Putin/Bush terrorists also, they talk about someone being COWARDS?! :lol:

I understand them as well, and i can sympathize with them if they want to get revenge on the people who did it, but does that justify killing the "bro and dad" of the other guy and raping his mother and daughter?
I sympathise with those who take it out on the guilty instead of slaughtering the innocent.

[commiecrusader]

Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter depends entirely on which side of the conflict you are on. For example, to the West, the rebels in Fallujah are terrorists, whereas to many Iraqis, they are freedom fighters.

[The idealist]

Who says Freedom fighters and terrorists are two different things?

I think a terrorist can be freedom fighter. Albeit one with the wrong idea.
The two terms are independant in my view.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear through violent acts among a civilian population. This is equivalent to somebody killing a friend or relative of yours in order to get at you, rather than targeting you directly. 'Legitimate' targets that I would not consider terrorism include:

- Direct attacks on armed forces (Including paramilitaries and police) or government institutions, or attacks on their infrastructure. (Bombing barracks, killing soldiers, attacking government buildings)

- Attacks against installation and equipment that is ostensibly for civilian purposes but is used by a government or armed force, or from which they gain benefit. (Sabotage of gas/oil pipelines, power lines, satellite dishes, etc)

- Attacks against corporations that collude with the enemy, including destroying productive capacity, buildings, stock etc.(death and injury to the common worker must be avoided as much as possible - they have practically no say in their company's activities. This excludes armed security gaurds) Arms companies and companies that financially support your enemy would be targets.

- Attacks against civilians that actively work with your enemy - informants, spies, grassers and hired assassins.

The trouble is most groups don't have the balls to do this and end up killing innocent civilians. (In this case, 'innocent' means not supporting the enemy in any way)

[king Royale]

Any act, regardless of how horrific the nature, is acceptable is it moves the reovolution forword. The only terroist act is one that slows/hinders the revolution.
I can't agree that the ends justify the means. If you set up a socialist haven through genocide I would not support it because of the way that it was established.
As to the question at hand, I believe that it depends on what these so-called terrorists do to define them either, as you put it, serial killers or freedom fighters. I cannot support car bombings that are targeted at civilians however I do support groups such as the Mahdi army in Iraq and the PFLP in Palestine as they wage guerrilla wars and do not purposefully target civilians.

[Rasta Sapian]

1. Anarchism is not Terrorism

2. Terrorism is not acceptable, bad shit

3. Neither is a crusade in the middle east

4. Bush is a mofo, how about homeland terrorism or a civil war?

[commiecrusader]

Noxion, I'm interested to know what you would class the rebels throughout Iraq as in that case? From your definition, I would say they were not terrorists.

[commiecrusader]

I cannot support car bombings that are targeted at civilians
Most of the car-bombings are not targeted at civilians but at police, army, or people queing to join the police. Viable targets according to Noxion and myself.

As for the kidnappings, which I knoooow will come up soon lol, most of these are of people working for allied contractors, again viable targets according to Noxion, although I'm not soo sure on that one.

I would still class the vast majority of rebels in Iraq as not being terrorists.

[king Royale]

I believe that car bombings on police and military locations are, though I do not like them, justifiable. However there have been some car bombings in Iraq that are targeted specifically at civilians such as the attack on a shi'ite mosque last spring and a recent attack on a schoolbus, accidental or not I can in no way find these acceptable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As for the kidnappings, which I knoooow will come up soon lol, most of these are of people working for allied contractors, again viable targets according to Noxion, although I'm not soo sure on that one.

This one is a little dodgy, but can be cleared up by asking some simple questions:

Did he want to go? Did the kidnapee have any choice as to whether he wanted to go to Iraq? Did he want to go?


I believe that car bombings on police and military locations are, though I do not like them, justifiable. However there have been some car bombings in Iraq that are targeted specifically at civilians such as the attack on a shi'ite mosque last spring and a recent attack on a schoolbus, accidental or not I can in no way find these acceptable.

I suspect that these are agent provocateurs attempting to discredit the resistance movement in Iraq. Certainly no resistance movement I know of has claimed responsibility for such attacks.