Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

[Ginnie]

How can we tell if someone or some group are Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

How many "freedom fighters" has the U.S. Government trained and supported that turned out to be terrorists?

If the Arabs fighting against the Turks, (who occupied most middle east countires in World War I ) are universally considered to be Freedom Fighters, what has dramatically changed today that Palestinians and other Moslems are labelled terrorists?

I realize that this is not a simple issue. There are many countries involved here, and different factors etc. But sometimes I get the sense that anyone who disagrees with Western policies can easily be lumped into that catagory.

[Jason]

My definition is someone who is not a regular member of a nation's armed forces who targets civilians.
So George Washington was not a terrorist because he didn't target civilians, and the bomber pilots who nuked Hiroshima were not terrorists because they were regular members of their nation's armed forces.
It's probably not a perfect definition.

[PhantomWolf]

Mine is similar to Jason's, anyone that deliberately and indescrimanately targets non-stategic civilians solely for the purpose of terrorising the population is a Terrorist. Where I would differ is in that while many civilians were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cities themselves were legitimate military targets and so those that dropped the bombs were targeting the military and manufactoring targets not the civilians.

I'd also point out that both labels apply to irregular forces, so the addition of "a nation's armed forces" is unnecessary. National armed forces can be neither freedom fighters or terrorists, but they can be criminals.

[wdmundt]

I would say that anyone who deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist. Being a member of "regular" armed forces is irrelevant. Armed struggle is armed struggle, no matter how you define the forces involved.

There may well have been legitimate military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but US forces spent a whole year fire-bombing the lightly-built cities of Japan, deliberately killing millions of civilians. The same thing happened in Europe -- but in that case it was RAF Bomber Command that targeted civilians with their night bombing campaign.

Toward the end of the war in Europe, USAAF Fighter Pilots were told to shoot at just about anything that moved. Chuck Yeager noted in his biography that you can fight a war that way, but you better make sure you win the war.

Bomber pilots and fighter pilots are not terrorists, however -- they were following orders. Those in command who deliberately targeted civilians were the ones responsible.

So it is not so easy to say "these people are terrorists, but there people over here doing the very same thing are not."

[Jason]

Which is why I make the distinction between part of a nation's armed forces. Risking Goodwin's law, in my view the German army weren't terrorists, not even those who ran the concentration camps. They were war criminals.
As to whether the Allies were war criminals for the fire-bombings of German and Japanese cities, it's debatable. Sherman's philosophy during the Civil War included breaking the civilian will to fight and it may have been the best way to preserve the most lives.
I feel you cannot divorce the motivations behind the actions from the actions themselves in determining if they were moral.
Killing a man who has done nothing against you is wrong, but killing a man in self defense is not. Being a terrorist is wrong, but sometimes killing civilians has saved the lives of more.

[Ginnie]

Interesting.
Seems it might just depend on which side you are on though.
Louis Riel was for many years considered a terrorist in Canada, but in recent years he seems to have been turned into a folk hero of sorts.

The point about civilians is important, but regular armed forces also target and kill civilians.
Some German cities like Dresden suffered greatly from Allied bombers in WWII. Someone could easily debate that that wasn't necessary.

The IRA were not terrorists in the eyes of many Irish Catholics, yet they did target civilians sometimes.
One thing I don't understand is Al Quada targeting so many civilians. Are they trying to get support from Iraqis or trying to scare them into getting rid of U.S. occupation?

[tedward]

The aspect of the bombing in WWII are very clear in my mind and not to forget the USAAF were also over Germany. For me, I see no other way at that period in time. Dresden is not so easy to understand the more you look at it. It was a combination of issues that had that awful result.

Re IRA, they certainly targeted civilians.

[Al Johnston]

May 16, 2008 10:57:59 GMT -4 @wdmundt said:

-- but in that case it was RAF Bomber Command that targeted civilians with their night bombing campaign.

You'll forgive me for pointing out that claims of American pinpoint accuracy in daylight were largely the product of the 8th Air Force's public relations department: when the USAAF followed the RAF to Dresden in February 1945, one formation managed to hit Prague.

While the Norden bombsight probably could "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 30,000 feet" in ideal conditions, conditions were never ideal over Germany. Also, only the lead plane in each wing was actually bombing by the sight; the remainder dropped their sticks as the formation leader dropped his: it was area bombing in all but name.

To be fair, RAF accuracy left much to be desired: before 1942, the Germans could have been forgiven for wondering whether Bomber Command were aiming at anything at all, or just bombarding the countryside at random.

[tedward]

Re pin point accuracy. 17 May, 00:15 is a pretty good anniversary for one. 65 years ago today/tonight.

[Al Johnston]

Not sure if Harris ever bought the Pink Elephant though ;D

Unfortunately, the modifications to the plan of attack made to account for the different construction of the Sorpe Dam didn't quite do the trick.

[tedward]

But he did get to make some rather larger devices that would be used for pin point bombing. There are some rather stunning pictures of a viaduct after conventional bombing, that is plaster the area. Then after 617 dropped a few tallboys and their larger companions.

[Al Johnston]

The U-boat pens had been similarly impervious to air attack before Tallboy and Grand Slam.

[wdmundt]

May 16, 2008 15:44:39 GMT -4 Al Johnston said:

May 16, 2008 10:57:59 GMT -4 @wdmundt said:

-- but in that case it was RAF Bomber Command that targeted civilians with their night bombing campaign.

You'll forgive me for pointing out that claims of American pinpoint accuracy in daylight were largely the product of the 8th Air Force's public relations department: when the USAAF followed the RAF to Dresden in February 1945, one formation managed to hit Prague.

While the Norden bombsight probably could "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 30,000 feet" in ideal conditions, conditions were never ideal over Germany. Also, only the lead plane in each wing was actually bombing by the sight; the remainder dropped their sticks as the formation leader dropped his: it was area bombing in all but name.

To be fair, RAF accuracy left much to be desired: before 1942, the Germans could have been forgiven for wondering whether Bomber Command were aiming at anything at all, or just bombarding the countryside at random.

There is no doubt that the USAAF daylight bombing was not nearly as effective as was hoped, but the intent was clear: pinpoint enemy manufacturing facilities and knock them out. The intent was not to demoralize the population by killing millions of civilians. Bomber Command started the war effort by trying to attack strategic targets, but it just wasn't possible at night -- and tactics switched to "area bombing." And -- as I noted above -- toward the end of the war, the USAAF was no longer going after strictly military targets and began attacking anything and everything.

My overall point is that attacking civilian populations in a war, (in my humble opinion) is no different than any other attack on civilian populations.

[wdmundt]

But then we also have to deal with attacks on military personnel. The attack on the USS Cole is an example. It is lumped into the terrorism category by many. Was that terrorism? What defines that as an act of terror, as opposed to, say... Iraq attacking the USS Stark with Exocet missiles in 1987? How are those attacks different?

[Jason]

Well, I could expand my definition a bit to include attacks on military personnel by members of a terrorist group (previously identified as such by their attacks on civilians).
It's not really what I would call an act of war, since it wasn't the attack of one nation's military forces on another.