06-03-2004 18:34									#1
	Terrorists or Freedom Fighters Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Just curious. What makes these groups or individuals terrorists or fredom fighters?

ETA(Basque Seperatists)
Mission: Autonomous state for Basques in Northeast corner of Spain, West corner of France.

Chiang Kai-shek
Mission: Founder of Chinese government in Exile on Taiwan. Ultimate goal unite China or declare Taiwan separate state

American Revolution founding fathers
Mission: Autonomous state for American Colonies

Unabomber Ted Kaczynsky Luddite
Mission: Revolution against the industrial system

Irish Republican Army
Mission: Liberation Norther Ireland from U.K.

Mao Zedong
Mission: Liberate China from Capitalism and Western power

FLN(Front de Libération)
Mission: Autonomous state for Algeria

Doroteo Arango, alias Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Mission: Liberate Mexico from Victoriano Huerta dictatorship

KKK(Ku Klux Klan)
Mission: Preserve,upliftment and solidarity of the white race as the basis for Christian

Menachim Begin
Mission: Establish israel as a recognized state

PLO(Palestinian Liberation Organizatio)
Mission: Autonomous state for Palestine

Henry Kissinger
Mission: ?. I'm too biased to state.

Bolshevik Party
Mission: Liberation of Proletariat(workers) from all economic, political, and social relationships in Russian society of the day.

Mahatma Ghandi
Mission: Autonomous state for India

Civil Rights movement in America
Mission: Equality for minorities as well as the poor in the U.S.

Ho Chi Minh
Mission: Autonomous state for Vietnam

Cuban Revolutionaries
Mission: Liberate Cuba from corrupt Batista government

President G.W. Bush(II)
Mission: ?. I'm too biased to state.

Of course there's many more Revolutionaries, terrorists and causes. Feel free to add some. The question is what separates these people? For instance what's the difference between Arafat and Begin?

	06-03-2004 18:35									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Means not goal.

	06-03-2004 18:37									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Almost all of the groups have used violence to acheive their goal. The only exception are the civil rights movement and the Mahatma Ghandi.

	06-03-2004 18:39									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Violence - perhaps. Against whom is the problem.

	06-03-2004 18:41									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

well, Begin never refused a deal to create an Israeli, state, for once.
Arafat never fought against a world-wide covering empire.

	06-03-2004 18:50									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So Arafat is the terrorist and begin is the Freedom fighter?

	06-03-2004 18:52									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Arafat was a terrorist, But Begin was not a freedom fighter. Plus these names are kinda stupid.

	06-03-2004 19:09									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

All the names here in some way or another attempted of effected a change in the political and social order of society.

	06-03-2004 19:11									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's not a definition for a freedom fighter. neither it is for a terrorist.

	06-03-2004 19:13									#10
	Suffering from ads?

Every single person or group listed here will tell you they are fighting for freedom for their group.

	06-03-2004 19:16									#11
	Support Apolyton

ETA has killed more than 800 people in the last 20 years, mainly with bombs and shoot-in-the-scruff. They're terrorist.

	06-03-2004 19:19									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So what? what they SAY doesn't matter. I't define it this way:

Freedom fighter: someone who's main goal is the liberation of a certain group of existing opression.

Terrorist: someone who targets civilians, in order to influence the society of the enemy society.

	06-03-2004 19:24									#13
	Put an end to popups!

I don't think Mao would be classed as either -- FF against the Japanese occupation, certainly, but the war that followed against Chiang (who I also wouldn't class as either) had both parties on more or less equal ground. Neither had a "prior claim" to China.

Or am I just showing off my great ignorance of Chinese history, again?

	06-03-2004 19:25									#14
	Re: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus ETA(Basque Seperatists) Mission: Autonomous state for Basques in Northeast corner of Spain, West corner of France.

Terrorists.

quote: Chiang Kai-shek Mission: Founder of Chinese government in Exile on Taiwan. Ultimate goal unite China or declare Taiwan separate state

Neither

quote: American Revolution founding fathers Mission: Autonomous state for American Colonies

Terrorists (to start with at least).

quote: Unabomber Ted Kaczynsky Luddite Mission: Revolution against the industrial system

Terrorist

quote: Irish Republican Army Mission: Liberation Norther Ireland from U.K.

Terrorists (but have recently reformed)

quote: Mao Zedong Mission: Liberate China from Capitalism and Western power

Neither. Just the head of an extrekely nasty faction in civil war.

quote: FLN(Front de Libération) Mission: Autonomous state for Algeria

Terrorists.

quote: Doroteo Arango, alias Francisco “Pancho” Villa Mission: Liberate Mexico from Victoriano Huerta dictatorship

Terrorists.

quote: KKK(Ku Klux Klan) Mission: Preserve,upliftment and solidarity of the white race as the basis for Christian

Terrorists.

quote: Menachim Begin Mission: Establish israel as a recognized state

Terrorist.

quote: PLO(Palestinian Liberation Organizatio) Mission: Autonomous state for Palestine

Terrorists (although now not outwardly so).

quote: Henry Kissinger Mission: ?. I'm too biased to state.

Neither (but not a good man)

quote: Bolshevik Party Mission: Liberation of Proletariat(workers) from all economic, political, and social relationships in Russian society of the day.

Again, just a faction in a civil war (the revolution itself was too quick and bloodless to count as terrorism inho)

quote: Mahatma Ghandi Mission: Autonomous state for India

Neither - he showed how it should be done.

quote: Civil Rights movement in America Mission: Equality for minorities as well as the poor in the U.S.

Neither (although terrorists have operated in their name)

quote: Ho Chi Minh Mission: Autonomous state for Vietnam

Neither. Again just a civil war

quote: Cuban Revolutionaries Mission: Liberate Cuba from corrupt Batista government

Hmm... not sure - I would need more info on what they did.

quote: President G.W. Bush(II) Mission: ?. I'm too biased to state.

Neither (obviously)

	06-03-2004 19:30									#15
	Got spare money?

By Azazel's definition ETA would be Freedom Fighters.

I believe mao believed the Chinese Nationalists were clearly in the west's pocket. Therefore, offering more of the same domination of China by the west. West includes Japan in this deifinition.

	06-03-2004 19:33									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Henry Kissinger evidence suggests he instrumented the assasination of several south american politicians when the U.S. was not officially at war with there countries. Is this not a terrorist act.

	06-03-2004 19:34									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It is not a terrorist act if he has the backing of a recognised state, surely. It is a political assasination carried out by the US.

	06-03-2004 19:34									#18
	Remove this text

By Azazel definition ETA will still a terrorist group. ETA has killed a lot of policeman and military man, but in the last years their victims have been mainly politics and journalists.

	06-03-2004 19:36									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: It is not a terrorist act if he has the backing of a recognised state, surely.

So there is no such thing as state terror?

	06-03-2004 19:38									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Terrorist tries to employ a usually violent means of policy change, through fear.

A Freedom Fighter would typically use non-violent means, except in in proportion and in direct self-defense... not even in defense of others.

	06-03-2004 19:38									#21
	Put an end to popups!

Well, states can cause terror, obviously, but I wouldn't call them terrorists. I would reserve that for non-recognised agencies.

	06-03-2004 19:42									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: It is not a terrorist act if he has the backing of a recognised state, surely. So there is no such thing as state terror?

Only independent organizations can be terrorists... if "violent acts" are linked directly to the government, then that would be considered open war, or espionage.

Maybe a government which directly funds individuals (not including state militaries) and encourages terroristic acts, could be considered a terroristic government, or at least a terrorist sponsor.

	06-03-2004 19:44									#23
	Put an end to popups!

Is the U.S. authorizing assasinations on Politicians different from Libya authorizing bombs on commerical airliners?

	06-03-2004 19:51									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Should actions which cause a loss of revenue be considered a form of terrorism.
The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

	06-03-2004 19:54									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus Is the U.S. authorizing assasinations on Politicians different from Libya authorizing bombs on commerical airliners?

Interesting point. The difference is, of course discrimination of target. The US has a specific target, and the Libyans, any people of a particular culture would do, since the goal was terror, not a particular person.

	06-03-2004 19:56									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus Should actions which cause a loss of revenue be considered a form of terrorism. The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

Nope... its covered under regular legal codes... its effectively lawlessness, although it turned into a revolutionary war (E.G. nation states vs nation states.)

	06-03-2004 19:58									#27
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus Should actions which cause a loss of revenue be considered a form of terrorism. The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

Only if you want to call the Civil Rights movement a terroristic one.

	06-03-2004 20:01									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

How do you come up with the classification of the American "Founding Fathers" as terrorists? With the exception of certain fringe groups they eschewed violence against civilians and by and large attempted to conduct their struggle according to the rules of warfare of their age.

	06-03-2004 20:02									#29
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Verto Only if you want to call the Civil Rights movement a terroristic one.

The Civil Rights movement used largely non-violent means. MLK jr. always preached non-violent action.

I agree that the Boston Tea Party wasn't terrorism, but I disagree with the analogy.

	06-03-2004 20:05									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Well, states can cause terror, obviously, but I wouldn't call them terrorists. I would reserve that for non-recognised agencies.

So you would classify the Nazi party as freedom fighters? IIRC that was exactly what they claimed to be. Would you actually put the Nazis and America's revolutionary leaders in the same category?