Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

[Amazing Mr. K]

Coming from the discussion regarding the phenomenal move (at least in my opinion), V for Vendetta.

So, how do you folks feel about this?

[Erika]

On first blush, freedom fighter all the way. In reality, probably both.

On the one hand you've got a guy fighting against an oppressive government. Not just ordinary "We're going to tap your phone and not tell you about it because you took a forign language in college" oppresive. We're talking "torture, active abuse of citizens by persons in power, say anything about the government and you're a terrorist, no civil liberties, we're going to engineer a murderous plot against our own citizens in order to ensure their compliance" oppression. In a situation like that, revolution is likely the only recourse for the people. They have nowhere else to turn for succor. Revolution has to start somewhere.

On the other hand, he DID blow up parliment. distinction between terrorist and revolutionary is decided by history, by the people in charge, and by the winner. History takes time, the people in charge react based on their own situations, and the person that wins isn't necessarily in the right.

[Lore]

admin said:

On first blush, freedom fighter all the way. In reality, probably both.

On the one hand you've got a guy fighting against an oppressive government. Not just ordinary "We're going to tap your phone and not tell you about it because you took a forign language in college" oppresive. We're talking "torture, active abuse of citizens by persons in power, say anything about the government and you're a terrorist, no civil liberties, we're going to engineer a murderous plot against our own citizens in order to ensure their compliance" oppression. In a situation like that, revolution is likely the only recourse for the people. They have nowhere else to turn for succor. Revolution has to start somewhere.

On the other hand, he DID blow up parliment. distinction between terrorist and revolutionary is decided by history, by the people in charge, and by the winner. History takes time, the people in charge react based on their own situations, and the person that wins isn't necessarily in the right.

Yes.

[Masoob]

Was that actually the reason for the infamous phone taps?

And I agree with the last part. But in the end what does it matter. Take Che Guevara for example. A revolutionary to some, but apparently the CIA and Bolivian leadership decided he was a terrorist. Isn't that the way it always works? So In my opinion being branded a Revolutionary or Terrorist does nothing but shorten your lifespan considerably, and if you're lucky, your face may adorn t-shirts for years to come.

[Erika]

I dont know wha the actual reason was behind the wiretaps. As far as I know, there was never any reason given other than the people were persons of interest. As in, under the patriot act, a lot of information becomes "need to know." As in, they need to know, and they need us not to.

[Whitehawke]

As far as I can tell, the only differences between"freedom fighters" and "terrorists" are:

*) The phrase "freedom fighter" has positive connotations and the word "terrorist" has negative connotations.

*) Freedom fighters are, by definition, fighting for a constructive goal--a particular set of freedoms, usually self-rule. Terrorists have a purely destructive goal--e.g. the destruction of a particular sovereign state without any intention of replacing it with anything else.

On this scale, I'd rate V as a terrorist...he was on a purely destructive quest to get rid of the state, but he had no interest in being involved in the part that came next: making sure that what replaced it was better.

[Masoob]

What exactly is the patriot act?

And is a terrorist/freedom fighter defined by how he defines himself or how others define him? Because it doesn't seem likely terrorists to us actually call themselves terrorists. Don't both just see themselves as a catalyst for change? I can't really think of any examples where 'freedom fighters' had longer term goals that 'terrorists'. I guess terrorists are known as that because they lose, then they are dead, and as Erika said, history is made by those in charge. If the 'terrorists' were the dominant force that won (whatever revolution) wouldn't they sell the story that they were freedom fighters, and the other side were terrorists?

[Erika]

As to Whitehawke: I agree in the first, and disagree in the second. V may have not been interested in being the new government, but he knew from the beginning that he COULDN'T take that role. Even if he hadn't died in the end, he would not be politically or socially equipped to lead the rebuilding. However, his goal was not purely destructive. He wasn't aiming to take down the whole of the state and reduce England to a smoking chaotic mess. He wasn't looking to inspire "terror" in the citizenry. Adn the building that he blew up would have been unoccupied at the time, and thus was a symbolic act rather than a murderous one. His constructive goal is to inspire the people to revolution, which he told them outright a year before his attack. His inspiration struck home, as evidenced by the hoarde of London folk in V costumes who sowed up to witness the explosion. Was the guy off his nut? Sure. But I think that he was a terrorist only in the sense that he was trying to take down an established government, not because he was trying to murder or terrorize people.

As to Murry: The patriot act is a collection of laws passed shortly after 9/11 designed to give the government more clout in dealing with terrorists and possible terrorists. It is supposed to remove some of the process barricades that they usually face when dealing with such people. Some people, myself included, feel that the loss of personal freedoms and the power to work around civil liberties far outweighs the possible ability to catch the bad guys more easily. And of courseit is called the patriot act because obviously the people who designed it are loyal patriots to our country, and those who oppose it hate america.

I think that it's idfficult to define a terrorist because of the reasons you mentioned, however there are some benchmarks to go by that most sensible people could agree on. A terrorist wants to hurt people. He will murder civilians and attempt to bring down a government through fear and destruction. A freedom fighter wants to have a new, better government. His aim is not murder and mayhem.

I also think that "terrorism" is an overused word that is flung about by policy makers whenever they want to inspire a visceral reaction in people. Terrorism is bad, we're afraid of terrorists, so every time someone wants popular approval out comes terrorism. X policy fights terrorism! Ah, I hate terrorism. Thus I must support this policy. It's cheerleading to get us revved up. I dislike the phrase "the war on terror" because terrorism is a concept, not an entity that one can fight. Eliminating terrorism depends on changing the hearts and minds of individuals and can't just be stamped out. I also dislike how the Iraq war is labeled as a part of the war on terror because it's two ery different things, but it gets lumped together to pander to epople's willful ignorance in the quest for popular support.

[Whitehawke]

murrayb said:

What exactly is the patriot act?

Long answer:

www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Medium answer:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Short answer:

The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for the short name of a bill: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". It's obviously a backronym intended to make it hard to vote against. Its purpose is to give the government in general and law enforcement in particular incredibly wide powers to do pretty much whatever they feel necessary "in the pursuit of terrorism". Many people (including me) feel that the bad outweighs the good and that the aforementioned powers violate our civil liberties in significant ways.

murrayb said:

And is a terrorist/freedom fighter defined by how he defines himself or how others define him? Because it doesn't seem likely terrorists to us actually call themselves terrorists. Don't both just see themselves as a catalyst for change? I can't really think of any examples where 'freedom fighters' had longer term goals that 'terrorists'. I guess terrorists are known as that because they lose, then they are dead, and as Erika said, history is made by those in charge. If the 'terrorists' were the dominant force that won (whatever revolution) wouldn't they sell the story that they were freedom fighters, and the other side were terrorists?

I obviously can't say for sure, but I doubt that there are any self-professed "terrorists" out there...they are all "freedom fighters" or at least "guerrilas". That said, I still find the distinction useful. To me, a terrorist is someone who just wants to smash something; a freedom fighter is someone who says "here's what we want to exist, and we're going to smash whatever is in the way of creating it". That means that the American and French revolutions, the Communist revolution in China, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam (who mostly just wanted to return to the status quo ante bellum) all the acts of freedom fighters, but the people who blow up planes in order to "destroy the Great Satan" are just terrorists. Note that being a freedom fighter by this definition doesn't mean you get to be moral, popular, or even successful--it just means that you're working towards some particular constructive goal.

[Masoob]

Erika, normally when I hear the phrase 'war on terror', its coming from the presidents lips, and thanks to the accent sounds more like 'the war on terra', which means he wants to destroy the earth itself! HA! the gig is up!

So then the patriot act is basically martial law that certain law enforcers can impose when and where they like.


Blowing up planes in order to destory the 'great satan' would be a goal in thier mind, woudn't it? Mind you, a short sighted

[Masoob]

Oh, and by the way its 'MurrAy'. common mistake.

[Whitehawke]

murrayb said:

Oh, and by the way its 'MurrAy'. common mistake.

Especially when you don't set your profile to show it with the capitalization you want. ;>

Here's how to fix it: www.sidekickgirl.proboards61.com/index.cgi?action=modifyprofile&user=murrayb

Change the "Display Name" field to show it with the capitalization that you want.

[Masoob]

Are we talking about the capitalized 'A' or the fact my user name doesn't have any capitals?

[Erika]

I think we're just going for I left out the a. S'all right.

But yes, some people would view the patriot act as a form of martial law. Except it's not general law enforcement that can take advantage of it, only certain select groups. It allows for things like wiretapping, arresting people and not giving them due process, and executing arrests and searches without warrents (or with "secret" warrents issued by "secret" courts which amount to the same thing)

[Masoob]

Sometimes, the states scare me.