Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?

[kotkinjs1]

None of it's that simple. Personally I think there's a breakover point where a terrorist group simply becomes a terror group, leaving any claim to being anyone's freedom fighter behind.

Steve, I'm not so sure; I think you're talking about the difference between political terrorism and pure Nietzschean nihilism (maybe Russian anarchism?). I view terrorism as only a tactic towards a political end. I can't see how any of the orgs you listed still don't fall into the category of both terrorist *and* freedom fighter. Both are still working towards a political end state defined by a perception of righting a political wrong. Isn't any cycle of violence therefore irrelevant?

And if we're talking about nihilism versus terrorism that's a whole other philosophical discussion; interesting, but with a political differentiation outside to the OP's initial question.

[Steve Blair]

Steve, I'm not so sure; I think you're talking about the difference between political terrorism and pure Nietzschean nihilism (maybe Russian anarchism?). I view terrorism as only a tactic towards a political end. I can't see how any of the orgs you listed still don't fall into the category of both terrorist *and* freedom fighter. Both are still working towards a political end state defined by a perception of righting a political wrong. Isn't any cycle of violence therefore irrelevant?

And if we're talking about nihilism versus terrorism that's a whole other philosophical discussion; interesting, but with a political differentiation outside to the OP's initial question.

I think the transition point takes place when a group's political goals become totally irrelevant to any current situation. The end state tends to shift from reasonably concrete things to very fuzzy goals that cannot be achieved. At that point, the violence becomes an end in itself. Saying that the cycle of violence is irrelevant misses the point.

Terrorism can certainly be a tactic...I agree with that. But with relation to the OP's question, what happens when the only man who thinks the terrorist is a freedom fighter is the terrorist himself?

[kotkinjs1]

I think the transition point takes place when a group's political goals become totally irrelevant to any current situation. The end state tends to shift from reasonably concrete things to very fuzzy goals that cannot be achieved. At that point, the violence becomes an end in itself. Saying that the cycle of violence is irrelevant misses the point.

Roger; I understand what you're saying but we're not talking about political terrorism at that point anymore. I suppose that's your point too. Once a terrorist group reaches that point (I find that a highly hypothetical argument; I still can't see any politically-motivated group following that route, even the groups you mentioned in the first post), they're not political terrorists or freedom fighters. They're nihilists in the purest sense of the word; fighting simply to fight, to overthrow 'normalcy.' If a person/group starts out at that point, with no reason for fighting other than for the sake of violence, I'd imagine it'd be a simple law-enforcement affair since there are no underlying and valid political issues in the mix.

This brings us back to the cyclical nature of the argument itself - freedom fighter/terrorist, and the unnecessary labeling to satisfy the state. Terrorists will always be extra-legal no matter the cause. It's a tactic, yes, but only really necessary when the insurgent is in Phase I and II of Mao's revolutionary war. Since most insurgencies never get past that stage, we never see the fruition or utility of the tactic.

[Dayuhan]

Terrorists who fight governments we dislike are called "freedom fighters". Terrorists who fight governments we like are called "terrorists". Other governments and groups apply the same distinction, and since different folks like different things, almost anyone out there who uses violence will be called a terrorist by someone and a freedom fighter by someone else.

Whether or not anyone in the picture, those who fight governments or the governments they fight, has any concern for anyone's "freedom" in the literal sense is generally irrelevant to the nomenclature.

[Bill Moore]

Terrorists who fight governments we dislike are called "freedom fighters".

More accurately they are labeled as useful.

[Dayuhan]

More accurately they are labeled as useful.

Politics require that those we consider useful must be labeled as noble.

[Bill Moore]

Politics require that those we consider useful must be labeled as noble.

Only when we openly admit to supporting them.