Terrorist vs legitimate resistance

"Terrorist" is a term used by the good guys to make the bad guys seem bad.

"Resistance" is a term used by the good guys to make the good guys seem good.

History is written by the victors...ultimately, if they lose they'll be terrorists, and if they win they'll be patriots.

CM

Yes, you've stumbled onto the "freedom fighters" vs "terrorists" question. For instance in the 80s Osama Bin Ladin was a "freedom fighter" as long as he was killing people America wanted dead but couldn't dirty their hands doing it themselves (and America provided the training and the weapons to do it).

"Legitimate reistance" is a 100% subjective term, depending entirely on which "side" you are on. Your very own example of the American Revolution is a good one - by clinical defintion the American's were some of the original terrorists, breaking the rules of war by dressing up as civilians so they could go behind enemy lines. Remember, America wasn't a conquered terrority (unless you count Native Americans, and the Natives sided with the British anyway) - Americans where originally British citizens who had moved there - like American's moving to Las Vegas a half century ago to make it a city. However some of those citizens decided that they did not have proper representation in government (they paid taxes, but did not recieve the same benefits as British citizens still living in Britian) and decided to rebel and form their own country. It's also important to remember that the revolutionary cause didn't even have majority support - only about 40-45% of the British citizens in America supported the cause. So imagine that 40-45% of the population of Las Vegas decided that they needed to declare their independence from America because they where not being represented, and proceeded to fight an insurection against the United States Government to do it, complete with terrorist tactics. Would they be a "legitimate reistance", or "terrorists"?

Terrorists are called terrorists because they create terror. They attack civilians and innocent bystanders. Governments can have terrorist tactics too, which means terrorist cannot be applied to only small opposing groups. "Freedom Fighters" or rebels would attack government or military targets. This is how I distinguish these definitions.

Define innocent bystander.

CM

Terrorists do not exist. Neither do legitimate resistances. Nor do governments, or innocent bystanders. Only people; and in the end that is all that matters.

Those terms are merely labels, created by those in power to create a sense of fear and seperation. It is much harder to justify the murder of thousands when those being murdered are the same as you.

To quote Mark Twain:

Quote:

All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it. - "The Private History of the Campaign That Failed"

Quote:

Original post by SticksandStones To quote Mark Twain: Quote: All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it. - "The Private History of the Campaign That Failed"

To quote him again:

Quote:

"O Lord, our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out rootless with their little children to wander unfriended through wastes of their desolated land - for our skes,who adore thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protect their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!" "We ask of one who is the spirit of love and who is the ever faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset, and seek his aid with humble and contrite hearts. Grant our prayer, O Lord, and thine shall be the praise and honor and glory now and ever. Amen."

Yep. It's all just killing in the end.

Quote:

Original post by Conner McCloud Define innocent bystander. CM

A person that shows up to work one morning and is killed by an airplane that has flown into their building.

Quote:

Original post by TheMeatMan Quote: Original post by Conner McCloud Define innocent bystander. CM A person that shows up to work one morning and is killed by an airplane that has flown into their building.

Really? You have an awfully expansive definition of "legitimate resistance", then. Very strange.

Quote:

Original post by TheMeatMan Quote: Original post by Conner McCloud Define innocent bystander. CM A person that shows up to work one morning and is killed by an airplane that has flown into their building.

Ok, so what if that person uses some of the money they earn working to fund terrorist activities? The US government certainly engages in terrorist activities like the overthrow of democratic governments in favor of friendly dictatorships, to name a few. Would someone paying their taxes be considered a terrorist?

And before you answer, consider that the US government is currently arresting and defining as a terrorist (with all the loss of rights) people who donate to charities that the government then decides might be helping terrorist organizations, even if they had no way of knowing that was the case.

Quote:

Original post by TheMeatMan A person that shows up to work one morning and is killed by an airplane that has flown into their building.

What was the target of this attack, and why?

CM

Quote:

Original post by Michalson Quote: Original post by TheMeatMan Quote: Original post by Conner McCloud Define innocent bystander. CM A person that shows up to work one morning and is killed by an airplane that has flown into their building. Ok, so what if that person uses some of the money they earn working to fund terrorist activities? The US government certainly engages in terrorist activities like the overthrow of democratic governments in favor of friendly dictatorships, to name a few. Would someone paying their taxes be considered a terrorist? And before you answer, consider that the US government is currently arresting and defining as a terrorist (with all the loss of rights) people who donate to charities that the government then decides might be helping terrorist organizations, even if they had no way of knowing that was the case.

These are straw man arguments and you know it.

Quote:

Original post by Conner McCloud Quote: Original post by TheMeatMan A person that shows up to work one morning and is killed by an airplane that has flown into their building. What was the target of this attack, and why? CM

Again, this is a straw man argument. Another example. A little kid is dropped off at daycare and is then killed by a truck bomb. Members of a family board a plane from Detroit to New Dehli only to have the plane brought down over Lockerbie Scotland.

Thanks for the downgraded rating guys, way to debate.

Quote:

Original post by TheMeatMan These are straw man arguments and you know it.

Quote:

Original post by TheMeatMan Again, this is a straw man argument.

I'm, uh, not entirely sure that you know what a "straw man argument" is.

You're a freedom fighter in my book if you fight for what I think freedom is. This disqualifies Bin Laden and his Base even if their victory against the evil empire did much to advance freedom. What they had in mind for Afghanistan and the rest of the world is the opposite of freedom.

Quote:

Original post by Conner McCloud Define innocent bystander. CM

Since this question was aimed at me I'll answer it. Civilians and 'innocent bystanders' I clumped together. These are people who are not the government or military powers the terrorist has an agenda against. Granted, the terrorist himself may consider 'all people who don't share my views' as the enemy and not believe in civilians. I am just trying to make a distinction between a military campaign -- which is meant to unseat power -- versus a terror campaign -- which is meant to instill fear in the populace.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Quote: Original post by TheMeatMan These are straw man arguments and you know it. Quote: Original post by TheMeatMan Again, this is a straw man argument. I'm, uh, not entirely sure that you know what a "straw man argument" is.

Sure I do. My argument was misrepresented and hypothetically extrapolated into a 'guilt by association' argument. Because of my responses, someone decided to negatively rate me. Not that it bothers me, just strange.

--edit--
Added quote that I was responding to.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor You're a freedom fighter in my book if you fight for what I think freedom is. This disqualifies Bin Laden and his Base even if their victory against the evil empire did much to advance freedom. What they had in mind for Afghanistan and the rest of the world is the opposite of freedom.

What Bin Laden sees though as freedom is different than what you or I see. From what I understand, he wanted the western countries to stop occupying the Islamic world, particularly Saudi Arabia. So several US Embassies were attacked. Those are a representation of the government, so in a way, it could be considered freedom fighting. Over here when that happen, those were considered terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the World Trade Center would be a little more difficult to put into context. It was viewed more as a symbolic gesture, and those who were in it were casualties of war. Sort of like how when the USA bombs a facility in Iraq, and 50 people around there die. Or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is just an area that's way too subjective imho. I pretty much agree with what Conner McCloud has stated above (which is strange, because I normally don't agree with his political stances).

Regarding the OP, a link to the article you were reading would be appropriate: Hezbollah.

Quote:

The United States, Israel and four other countries consider Hezbollah wholly or partly a terrorist organization. Human rights organization Amnesty has reported that Hezbollah committed war crimes against civilians in Israel. [13] [14] The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization",[15] but does list Imad Mugniyah as such.[16]

Here is the reference cited regarding the EU's categorization of Hezbollah: The EU's relations with Lebanon.

Here are a few links about a terrorist that the United States deemed a legitmate resistance fighter - and who the US refuses to extradict to Venezuela for trial.

Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch and the Downing of Cubana Flight 455: A Glimpse into the Mind of a Terrorist

LUIS POSADA CARRILES THE DECLASSIFIED RECORD: CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.

Profile: Cuban 'plane bomber'

Alleged anti-Castro terrorist Posada arrested

Man without a country seeks freedom

Anti-Castro exile admits weapons scheme