Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

[Pax]

Henry Kissinger evidence suggests he instrumented the assasination of several south american politicians when the U.S. was not officially at war with there countries. Is this not a terrorist act.

[Rogan Josh]

It is not a terrorist act if he has the backing of a recognised state, surely. It is a political assasination carried out by the US.

[yaroslav]

By Azazel definition ETA will still a terrorist group. ETA has killed a lot of policeman and military man, but in the last years their victims have been mainly politics and journalists.

[Az]

It is not a terrorist act if he has the backing of a recognised state, surely.

So there is no such thing as state terror?

[MrBaggins]

Terrorist tries to employ a usually violent means of policy change, through fear.

A Freedom Fighter would typically use non-violent means, except in in proportion and in direct self-defense... not even in defense of others.

[Rogan Josh]

Well, states can cause terror, obviously, but I wouldn't call them terrorists. I would reserve that for non-recognised agencies.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Azazel

It is not a terrorist act if he has the backing of a recognised state, surely.

So there is no such thing as state terror?

Only independent organizations can be terrorists... if "violent acts" are linked directly to the government, then that would be considered open war, or espionage.

Maybe a government which directly funds individuals (not including state militaries) and encourages terroristic acts, could be considered a terroristic government, or at least a terrorist sponsor.

[Pax]

Is the U.S. authorizing assasinations on Politicians different from Libya authorizing bombs on commerical airliners?

[Pax]

Should actions which cause a loss of revenue be considered a form of terrorism.
The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Is the U.S. authorizing assasinations on Politicians different from Libya authorizing bombs on commerical airliners?

Interesting point. The difference is, of course discrimination of target. The US has a specific target, and the Libyans, any people of a particular culture would do, since the goal was terror, not a particular person.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Should actions which cause a loss of revenue be considered a form of terrorism.
The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

Nope... its covered under regular legal codes... its effectively lawlessness, although it turned into a revolutionary war (E.G. nation states vs nation states.)

[Verto]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Should actions which cause a loss of revenue be considered a form of terrorism.
The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

Only if you want to call the Civil Rights movement a terroristic one.

[Dr Strangelove]

How do you come up with the classification of the American "Founding Fathers" as terrorists? With the exception of certain fringe groups they eschewed violence against civilians and by and large attempted to conduct their struggle according to the rules of warfare of their age.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Verto
Only if you want to call the Civil Rights movement a terroristic one.

The Civil Rights movement used largely non-violent means. MLK jr. always preached non-violent action.

I agree that the Boston Tea Party wasn't terrorism, but I disagree with the analogy.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Well, states can cause terror, obviously, but I wouldn't call them terrorists. I would reserve that for non-recognised agencies.

So you would classify the Nazi party as freedom fighters? IIRC that was exactly what they claimed to be. Would you actually put the Nazis and America's revolutionary leaders in the same category?