Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
These groups all felt they were being oppressed in one way or another. The KKK is a good example.

Believing something doesn't make it true. If I feel oppressed by Turkish immigrants in Germany and therefore start planting bombs in their houses I don't fight for my freedom because this freedom is not in danger in reality. If you go that way you could simply say there is no act of murder, because a murderer has a goal too and he may feel oppressed by the law that makes murder illegal - therefore all murderers are freedom fighters too.

[Pax]

Yhat's a good point. Well, let's go back to the American Revolution. These men claimed on paper that they were opposed to the Tyranny of the British monarchy. Were they in fact being oppressed? Does it even matter if they were or not? Men died over their position.

I think it really does not matter whether they were being oppressed or not. What really matters is that they were willing to kill for their claimed belief. The same goes for the person who feels they are being oppressed by the Turkish immigrants. The same for a Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynsky.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the ETA are freedom fighters.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
there he is. i was wondering when he would come out. +1.

If you're using the ETA topic to troll Fez, please bear in mind that there are a lot of Spaniards around who could be offended, not only Fez

If you're being serious, please explain me how killing +800 people in the last 20 years with bombs and shoot in back are not terrorism. In fact, there are only a few topics in this world I know a little about it. ETA is one of them. I challenge you to prove that sentece.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think it really does not matter whether they were being oppressed or not. What really matters is that they were willing to kill for their claimed belief. The same goes for the person who feels they are being oppressed by the Turkish immigrants. The same for a Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynsky.

I disagree. Let me give you another example from Germany - the Red Army Fraction or RAF in the 70ies saw itself as guerilla fighting force against an oppressive capitalist system, so they killed prominent bankers or industry guys, planted bombs etc. But one can hardly argue against the fact that the RAF had no big support amongst the people (which may indicate that there was no oppression), and that those members of the RAF had the chance to fight politically (without violence) for their views within the democratic process, which would probably not have been the case in a really oppressive system.

The point you make - that all those guys or organizations hold certain views for which they would fight and kill - does only explain why they indeed fight and kill, but it does not prove that this fighting and killing has anything to do with their freedom or liberation from oppression. Liberation in the absence of oppression is nonsense. The Nazis hold a lot of irrational fears against Jews, but nobody except perhaps some neonazi nutheads would call the Holocaust a fight for freedom.

[Pax]

I do not mean to insult or anger any person. I simply state that the Basque' people have a claim on sovereignty. The ETA has chosen a means to make good on this claim. You may not agree with the methods.
It also seems to me a neutral obsever that the Basque seem to have a legitimate claim to autonomous rule. They appear to me to be a conquered people.

[Pax]

Originally posted by BeBro


I disagree. Let me give you another example from Germany - the Red Army Fraction or RAF in the 70ies saw itself as guerilla fighting force against an oppressive capitalist system, so they killed prominent bankers or industry guys, planted bombs etc. But one can hardly argue against the fact that the RAF had no big support amongst the people (which may indicate that there was no oppression), and that those members of the RAF had the chance to fight politically (without violence) for their views within the democratic process, which would probably not have been the case in a really oppressive system.

The point you make - that all those guys or organizations hold certain views for which they would fight and kill - does only explain why they indeed fight and kill, but it does not prove that this fighting and killing has anything to do with their freedom or liberation from oppression. Liberation in the absence of oppression is nonsense. The Nazis hold a lot of irrational fears against Jews, but nobody except perhaps some neonazi nutheads would call the Holocaust a fight for freedom.

In a democratic system it might appeal to the mass of society to exterminate, put in concentration camps, or otherwise subjugate a group of people. The subject may be debated. There may be a vote. In the end if the majority decides that it is okay to place a minority of people in concentration camps then that minority is still oppressed. Not only that, but the majority can be convinced to vote for things that are not in there best interests. The majority can actually be convinced to vote for laws and propositions that oppress the majority or the minority depending on the spin that is put on the subject. Havind a democracy does not prevent oppression. It may very well be the fact that the RAF was right. I'm not saying they were. I'm saying how can you really label a group as terrorist?

[yaroslav]

I wasn't replying you, Pax, but to Lawerence.

Believe what you want (I disagree with the autonomus rule - but that is not terrorism debate - opean another thread if you want us to discuss )

My problem is with the idea that bombing and killing civilians (between civilians and military, police people there have been more than 800 deads in the last 20 years) with means to cause fear and to get polical objetive is not terrorism. As simply as that. Everyone in the basque country, even the mainstream nationalist (who are currently in govern of the Basque Autonomous Region, BTW) say they're terrorist.

But I'm in a hurry rigth now. I'll return in 2 hours or so.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
In a democratic system it might appeal to the mass of society to exterminate, put in concentration camps, or otherwise subjugate a group of people. The subject may be debated. There may be a vote. In the end if the majority decides that it is okay to place a minority of people in concentration camps then that minority is still oppressed. Not only that, but the majority can be convinced to vote for things that are not in there best interests. The majority can actually be convinced to vote for laws and propositions that oppress the majority or the minority depending on the spin that is put on the subject. Havind a democracy does not prevent oppression.

I think that leads us into a far more bigger debate which I'm too lazy to do now

It may very well be the fact that the RAF was right. I'm not saying they were. I'm saying how can you really label a group as terrorist?

There are RAF guys now which say themselves there were wrong in killing those people. It took most of them some time in prison to find that out.

Why shouldn'd I label them terrorist? Only because of their own subjective feelings which were fueled by a certain ideological orientation? If only their own feelings matter, it would mean anyone could declare himself a freedom fighter in even the most absurd cases, so we would not have any rational basis to judge anything...No, I think the concrete context in which the RAF did what it did helps us to decide their status. They were young people who initially faced no prosecution or oppression before they used violent means to change a system they simply hated because of their ideological POVs. But simply disliking something, and using this as a reason to kill people isn't fighting for freedom.

[Pax]

Right and wrong always seems obvious from where you're standing.

Freedom fighters/Terrorists
Allies/Axis
Yankees/Redcoats
French/FLN
Vietnamese/French
It seems to me that there are people who supported each of these sides as being right and the other wrong.
Algeria is prime example. Both sides practiced torture but the french government is not labeled as terrorist. It is also a democratic government.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Algeria is prime example. Both sides practiced torture but the french government is not labeled as terrorist. It is also a democratic government.

Easy. Algerians were right in fighting against the French colonial rule. Neither side was right in using torture.

But I would rather label French acts of torture warcrimes or crimes against humanity in this case. I don't understand the current obsession with the term "terrorist".

However, if you want to say that it is often difficult to label something/someone as clearly terrorist I would agree with you. I also would agree that this label (or the opposite "freedom fighter") is sometimes just given for simple political reasons. But that shouln'd lead us to believe that there is no "real" terrorism at all.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


So terrorist is not "too emotive" a term?

Would you prefer "person/group who intentionally attacks civilians in order to spread fear and terror throughout a society in order to achieve a political goal?" I think it's a little too unweildy myself. Now do you have a substantive question to ask?

[Pax]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Would you prefer "person/group who intentionally attacks civilians in order to spread fear and terror throughout a society in order to achieve a political goal?" I think it's a little too unweildy myself. Now do you have a substantive question to ask?

Would'nt your definition make the U.S. a terrorist group. We use fear of conventional and nuclear attack to acheive political goals.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Would'nt your definition make the U.S. a terrorist group.

That depends on the actions you want to talk about. What you just described wouldn't though.

[DinoDoc]

Are you one of these people that feels labeling people according to thier actions is bad because it makes them feel bad? I'm genuinely curious how one could avoid labeling al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization for instance.

[chequita guevara]

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?

The original definition of terrorism is terror directed by the state.