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

[shlomz]

Some freedom fighters may also be terrorists, but some terrorists are not freedom fighters.

In other words: while most national liberation movements resort to "terrorism" (i.e. the pursuit of political gain through violent intimidation) as a means towards their goal, there are many terrorist movements who do not seek freedom (other than the "freedom" to do as they like).

For example, were Nazi SA men, during the 1920s-30s, "freedom fighters"? Were the Al-Qaeda hijackers, who crashed into TWC? Also, were PLO guerrilas (after showing the world that a free and independant state sits lower on their priority list than blowing up a bus full of Israeli civilians)?

[Steve Blair]

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. Japan's Red Army, the old RAF, Italian Red Brigades, and some of the more radical factions of the IRA and UDF would clearly fall into this category. There's a clear cycle of violence (IMO) that can be used to mark the transition point.

[davidbfpo]

Mac,

A very current example of your question is the US decision to de-certify MEK as a terrorist group:

It was the MEK’s involvement in terror including the killing of six Americans in the 1970s that prompted President Bill Clinton to designate the group a foreign terrorist organization in 1992.

Violence has always been a part of the MEK. The group was founded in 1965 as an armed opposition to the Shah of Iran. After the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it assassinated Iran’s first president and prime minister and later assisted Saddam Hussein in crushing the Kurdish uprising. In 2001 the MEK claimed that it renounced violence but its record showed otherwise. According to a report published by Human Rights Watch in May 2005, “The former (MEK) members reported abuses ranging from detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization, to lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members.”

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/zahir-j...unter-with-mek

[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.

[Fuchs]

For example, were Nazi SA men, during the 1920s-30s, "freedom fighters"?

To many Nazis - yes. That's the point; opinions differ according to point of view.


This whole topic gets a lot clearer if we look at the core of the interest: Is one man's illegitimately violent man doing legitimate violence in the opinion of another man?

The answer is simply yes.


Terrorism is not particularly effective in pursuit of one's objective, so all powers which have a wide-ranging repertoire that's not being suppressed by superior opposition will shun terrorism in favour of better methods.
Terrorism is proclaimed to be a "dirty" method in violent conflict, and it's being proclaimed so by those who have better means or otherwise no need for terrorism.


In the end, it's all about people being willing to pursue a political objective with violence, but lacking the ability to do so on a more sophisticated level (say, manoeuvring a tank brigade).

[shlomz]

To many Nazis - yes. That's the point; opinions differ according to point of view.

I don't think so. Not because I (obviously) disagree with their goals, but because I think that the term "freedom fighters" is usually reserved to portray individuals who try to gain independence from a foreign nation. That way, the Taliban weren't "freedom fighters" until the US invasion of Afghanistan, even though they were using terrorism a long time before that.

[Fuchs]

I don't think so. Not because I (obviously) disagree with their goals, but because I think that the term "freedom fighters" is usually reserved to portray individuals who try to gain independence from a foreign nation. That way, the Taliban weren't "freedom fighters" until the US invasion of Afghanistan, even though they were using terrorism a long time before that.

Come on,even Nazis believed to fight for freedom. Freedom from communists, freedom from Jews, freedom from Treaty of Versailles...

Really, EVERYBODY exploits the motive of the fight for freedom.

[Dayuhan]

I think that the term "freedom fighters" is usually reserved to portray individuals who try to gain independence from a foreign nation.

The term is routinely applied to (or claimed by) those who rebel against governments or systems they believe to be dictatorial or just plain distasteful. Freedom from communist dictatorship, freedom from capitalist hegemony, freedom from practically anything you don't like...

[Fuchs]

Amusing little factoid:
The German translation of "freedom fighter" is Freiheitskämpfer, and unlike the English version Freiheitskämpfer is almost exclusively used on people who do/did not fight violently.
It's more often used to describe the civil rights movement people than to describe guerrillas.

[McArthur]

I'm in the process of putting together my argument. I'm also submitting it as part of my degree, but when it's an interesting topic like this I like to throw it out to various internet forums for a bit of discussion.

This is a quote from Binyamin Netanyahu's book, "Terrorism: How the West Can Win". I thought it was appropriate.

The idea that one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter’ cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don’t blow up buses containing non-combatants; terrorist murders do. Freedom fighters don’t set out to capture and slaughter schoolchildren; terrorist murders do… it is a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word ‘freedom’ to be associated with acts of terrorists.

- Mac

[Dayuhan]

I wonder whether Mr Netanyahu would have considered the Irgun or the Stern Gang to be "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"... I seem to recall them blowing up non-combatants on a number of occasions.

[Ulenspiegel]

Amusing little factoid:
The German translation of "freedom fighter" is Freiheitskmpfer, and unlike the English version Freiheitskmpfer is almost exclusively used on people who do/did not fight violently.
It's more often used to describe the civil rights movement people than to describe guerrillas.

As German I object your statement. :-)

People like Andreas Hofer were "Freiheitskaempfer" and fought violently :-)

[Firn]

As German I object your statement. :-)

People like Andreas Hofer were "Freiheitskaempfer" and fought violently :-)

He certainly looks like a cross between a "typical" Lederhose-clad German and a Taliban. As a matter of fact he was very religous and not too tolerant for Liberal ideas and other beliefs. But this is a different story.

From a military view it is interesting that the militas were able to be highly effective in the small war as well as able to hold their own in pitched defensive battles. Clausewitz has some interestings things to say in his chapter about the peoples war and IIRC noted that this was something very rare. Of course an important factor was terrain, which in this case aided greatly the defender and high marksmanship of a good deal of the "Shooters".

[ccmaximus]

This is not merely a matter of point of view. By what standards radical left wing European terrorists from the 70s (the Italian PAC for instance) could be considered "freedom fighters"? When a group executes terrorist actions against an open, free society, it is a totally different matter from another group employing the same tactics to break free from an oppresive dictatorship.

[Bob's World]

"terrorist" is absolutely a loaded label designed to render both the actor and the action as illegitimate. Sometimes it is actually the best label. Often it is not.

Are most "freedom fighters"? Many certainly are. Many fight for revenge, but that is OK too, and is the primary rationale behind the US-led response to 9/11.

I think it is also important to distinguish the difference between "why men fight" and "why conflicts occur." An organization with a primary purpose of freedom or revenge will always attract a large number who are simply young and seeking adventure, or are followers, or are sadists, or just need a check, etc, etc.

On Maslow's hierarchy, why men fight is driven more by the factors at the base of the pyramid, but why populace-based conflicts occur is driven more by the factors at the top. Both fuse in the middle, so there is no clean distinction.

But our rule of law approach and love of slapping broad labels of "terrorist" or "terrorism" onto organizations and individuals may well facilitate targeting, but it is a huge obstacle to actually working to resolve the drivers of why such organizations came to exist, and why they endure despite the best of our efforts to "CT" them into submission. Bribing populaces with Development is equally ineffective; as are governance programs that focus on giving others the leaders and forms of government that we deem are the "best guards for their future security."

Labels only help when they are smart to begin with and when they are never taken too literally or applied too permanently. Unfortunately, when it comes to terrorism labels, we break all three of those rules.