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.Originally Posted by Fuchs
"Nowadays people seem to imagine that impartiality means readiness to treat lies and truth the same, readiness to hold white as bad as black and black as good as white. I, on the contrary, believe that without integrity a man much better not approach a problem at all." Orde Charles Wingate, 1938
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.
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...
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
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.
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.
- MacThe 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.
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.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
The question asked on this thread was:
Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
I assume by your question you suspect - in the case of Netanyahu - he may see it that way.
Yes, exactly. It's often overlooked that if we're talking about "one man's" terrorist and "another man"s" freedom fighter we're talking about perceptions: what that one man perceives as a terrorist may be perceived by another as a freedom fighter. Whether those perceptions are objectively accurate or subjectively justifiable is of course a question open to debate, but it's a different question.
Any given evaluation of whether ends justify means is often highly dependent on the extent to which the person doing the evaluating identifies with or approves of the ends under discussion.
Yes, I suspect that the assessment of who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter used by Mr Netanyahu - one man - may be quite opposite from that adopted by, say, Khaled Mashaal - another man. I'm not making any effort to assess whose definition is right or wrong or better or worse, just pointing out that "one man" and "another" may in fact assess that equation quite differently. Whether either assessment is objectively accurate or subjectively justifiable is another question altogether.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 09-30-2012 at 10:14 PM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Yeah...the Independence narrative gets sketchy at times, but Jews did target a multi-use facility (King David Hotel) that contained a variety of civilians as well as military HQs. That the Irgun gave a warning of the pending bomb is immaterial.
Jewish political leadership at that time did step back--publicly--from the attack, but the record is full of gray areas. The wiki entry on the bombing I've read before is interesting as it notes that at the 60th anniversary, a commemorative plaque of sorts was put up (with Netanyahu in attendance) that continued to try to put the blame on casualties with the British.
The various "paramilitary" groups continued to use the full range of terrorist TTPs (bombing, arson, assassination) to advance their agenda, and they meet the definition for sure. I suppose Netanyahu would cede the notion that yes, they were terrorists, but he would muddy the definition by harping on the justification...attempting to blur the line in the process. In fact, I can recall him quoted as such before.
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".
Last edited by Firn; 10-02-2012 at 06:39 PM.
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"
General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935
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.
"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.
Last edited by Bob's World; 11-09-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Always worth looking at whether individuals or groups are fighting to stop their government (or someone else) from doing something to them or to impose something they prefer - usually themselves in power - on the government.
I've never bought the idea that people fight government, as insurgents or as terrorists, because the government has failed to deliver services or economic progress, especially in places where expectations of government are very low to start with. People fight because they are scared and/or angry, because government is messing with them, or because they want to take over and advance their own goals and ambitions. Those in the latter category often exploit those in the former category, and the wise counterinsurgent will aim to disaggregate the two by addressing the cause of the fear and anger that drive the footsoldier. That won't convert those who merely want to impose themselves and their ideology, but it will isolate them.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks