Freedom Fighters or Terrorists: Rouge One

[Internationalist Bastard]

Police definitely, they're civilians. Military personnel it get's harder to separate what an act of war or terrorism, but I'd definitely say the IRA was a terrorist group.

I think that depends on how you define the war. For example, if the police are actively aiding the military are they legitimate targets? I agree that the IRA are terrorists due to their attacks on civilians and non-military buildings, but I think some of their actions may not be terrorist actions, particularly in the light of what Trots has said.

I typically consider police that aren't directly linked with the military to be civilians. I don't really know what the police did to count as "assisting the military" but I'd typically say they were civilians and thus attacking them would be an act of terror

[Chestaan]

I think that depends on how you define the war. For example, if the police are actively aiding the military are they legitimate targets? I agree that the IRA are terrorists due to their attacks on civilians and non-military buildings, but I think some of their actions may not be terrorist actions, particularly in the light of what Trots has said.

I typically consider police that aren't directly linked with the military to be civilians. I don't really know what the police did to count as "assisting the military" but I'd typically say they were civilians and thus attacking them would be an act of terror

Well some of the police were know to participate in Loyalist paramilitaries. Others assisted the intelligence services or carried out operations against the IRA, and others still helped Loyalist mobs burn down Catholic houses. The Northern Irish police force before the 90s, the RUC, contained an awful lot of scumbags who hated Catholics, including a lot of the top brass.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I typically consider police that aren't directly linked with the military to be civilians. I don't really know what the police did to count as "assisting the military" but I'd typically say they were civilians and thus attacking them would be an act of terror

Well some of the police were know to participate in Loyalist paramilitaries. Others assisted the intelligence services or carried out operations against the IRA, and others still helped Loyalist mobs burn down Catholic houses. The Northern Irish police force before the 90s, the RUC, contained an awful lot of scumbags who hated Catholics, including a lot of the top brass.

Sounds like horrible corruption, but still civilians. Like, I'd consider a paramilitary organization killing KKK members in the police terrorism. Similarly, those police who committed those acts were also terrorists.

[Chestaan]

Well some of the police were know to participate in Loyalist paramilitaries. Others assisted the intelligence services or carried out operations against the IRA, and others still helped Loyalist mobs burn down Catholic houses. The Northern Irish police force before the 90s, the RUC, contained an awful lot of scumbags who hated Catholics, including a lot of the top brass.

Sounds like horrible corruption, but still civilians. Like, I'd consider a paramilitary organization killing KKK members in the police terrorism. Similarly, those police who committed those acts were also terrorists.

What if the police were carrying out orders given to them by the state? Would, for example, police open firing on protestors under the order of the government be terrorists? Apologies if I am asking too many questions, this is a fascinating topic to me and the opinions of others on how far we can stretch the term to has always interested me.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sounds like horrible corruption, but still civilians. Like, I'd consider a paramilitary organization killing KKK members in the police terrorism. Similarly, those police who committed those acts were also terrorists.

What if the police were carrying out orders given to them by the state? Would, for example, police open firing on protestors under the order of the government be terrorists? Apologies if I am asking too many questions, this is a fascinating topic to me and the opinions of others on how far we can stretch the term to has always interested me.

No, I think when a legitimate state is involved it's something else. It's not an official definition but personally I think terrorism has to be carried out by an private organization or individual

[Infected Mushroom]

They were. Germany, Japan, and Italy tried to take dominate the world (or at least a large part of it). The USA, Great Britain, and others fought to stop them. Something like that.

At least that's what I was told.

Man I'm not so sure the people of Dresden would agree with you. Also Russia, as part of the allies, would be considered good guys?

Yes they were comrades of the Allies.

They defended the Motherland from Germany as Germany tried to take them over. Many died in brave combat, screaming "FOR MOTHER RUSSIA" as they fought and died to protect their comrades.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

A freedom fighter is just a terrorist you agree with.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

Well some of the police were know to participate in Loyalist paramilitaries. Others assisted the intelligence services or carried out operations against the IRA, and others still helped Loyalist mobs burn down Catholic houses. The Northern Irish police force before the 90s, the RUC, contained an awful lot of scumbags who hated Catholics, including a lot of the top brass.

Sounds like horrible corruption, but still civilians. Like, I'd consider a paramilitary organization killing KKK members in the police terrorism. Similarly, those police who committed those acts were also terrorists.

So, therefore, "terrorism" is not always bad?


Maybe we shouldn't call it "terrorism". Maybe... "guerrilla-style insurgency"?

See, the words we use here have a lot of impact. If you say that it's "horrible corruption, but not terrorism", then that could be interpreted to imply that "terrorism" is worse than whatever the government people do, because even though it's corrupt, it's licensed by the government.

I dunno. I just feel there should be much more support for rebels and those who resist against greater powers than themselves, because whatever else they may have going on, they're at least brave enough to stand up for what they think is right.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sounds like horrible corruption, but still civilians. Like, I'd consider a paramilitary organization killing KKK members in the police terrorism. Similarly, those police who committed those acts were also terrorists.

So, therefore, "terrorism" is not always bad?


Maybe we shouldn't call it "terrorism". Maybe... "guerrilla-style insurgency"?

See, the words we use here have a lot of impact. If you say that it's "horrible corruption, but not terrorism", then that could be interpreted to imply that "terrorism" is worse than whatever the government people do, because even though it's corrupt, it's licensed by the government.

I dunno. I just feel there should be much more support for rebels and those who resist against greater powers than themselves, because whatever else they may have going on, they're at least brave enough to stand up for what they think is right.

Well first, I think you misunderstood me. Civilians getting killed is bad, irregardless of who does it. Second, my horrible corruption bit was not dismissing individual cops commit those horrible acts on their own volition as anything but terrorism.
I just think that we should separate the action of a group committing such acts for their gain and a government doing so. Like, I don't think the government ordering somebody to be killed should be called murder, but a crime boss doing so would be. It's just a matter of how I think governments need to be held up to a different light, one that's more strict, but also acknowledges the "legitimacy" of the actions. I'd say it's worse to kill someone and have the Government say it justified for x reasons then when anybody else does it, as we all need to live under these governments, and we need to acknowledge that when these things occur, they claim to do so for benefit. Hence, I find that we need a different word for it.
Does that make sense?

[Vaderinian Sith Renaissance]

So, therefore, "terrorism" is not always bad?


Maybe we shouldn't call it "terrorism". Maybe... "guerrilla-style insurgency"?

See, the words we use here have a lot of impact. If you say that it's "horrible corruption, but not terrorism", then that could be interpreted to imply that "terrorism" is worse than whatever the government people do, because even though it's corrupt, it's licensed by the government.

I dunno. I just feel there should be much more support for rebels and those who resist against greater powers than themselves, because whatever else they may have going on, they're at least brave enough to stand up for what they think is right.

Well first, I think you misunderstood me. Civilians getting killed is bad, irregardless of who does it. Second, my horrible corruption bit was not dismissing individual cops commit those horrible acts on their own volition as anything but terrorism.
I just think that we should separate the action of a group committing such acts for their gain and a government doing so. Like, I don't think the government ordering somebody to be killed should be called murder, but a crime boss doing so would be. It's just a matter of how I think governments need to be held up to a different light, one that's more strict, but also acknowledges the "legitimacy" of the actions. I'd say it's worse to kill someone and have the Government say it justified for x reasons then when anybody else does it, as we all need to live under these governments, and we need to acknowledge that when these things occur, they claim to do so for benefit. Hence, I find that we need a different word for it.
Does that make sense?

Truer words have not been spoken.

Largely, people in the African-American community seem to believe that the police act in what can only be called a "terroristic" way. Despite the long history of abuse, despite them quite frequently complaining, despite there best efforts, European-Americans seem to not know it or to be devoid of knowledge about it.
And a funny thing is, we in the U.S.A *DO* commit terrorism. It's been covered up, but we are responsible for killing, torturing and eliminating people. There is a thin line between being a freedom fighter and being a terrorist.

[Luziyca]

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is whether they are in our interests to describe them as one or the other.

[Neo Balka]

terrorists.

Blowing up expensive shit for one.

you have ANY idea how much a Imperial I class STAR DESTROYER COSTS?!

WELL DO YOU?

[Lorkhan]

So tell, how can you tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter ?

It depends on whose propaganda you believe, or where you feel you fall in association with culture. Ideological preferences and how tactics are used also have a significant influence.

[The first Galactic Republic]

terrorists.

Blowing up expensive shit for one.

you have ANY idea how much a Imperial I class STAR DESTROYER COSTS?!

WELL DO YOU?

I think the Empire gets discounts for buying in bulk from pointy spaceships industries. The Republic got the same deal so probably.

[Neo Balka]

terrorists.

Blowing up expensive shit for one.

you have ANY idea how much a Imperial I class STAR DESTROYER COSTS?!

WELL DO YOU?

I think the Empire gets discounts for buying in bulk from pointy spaceships industries. The Republic got the same deal so probably.

Kaut Drive yards thinks otherwise.

[The first Galactic Republic]

I think the Empire gets discounts for buying in bulk from pointy spaceships industries. The Republic got the same deal so probably.

Kaut Drive yards thinks otherwise.

They're just the parent company.

[Neo Balka]

Kaut Drive yards thinks otherwise.

They're just the parent company.

*checks expenditures*

that we still owe payment for the first batch.

[United City States of Oceania]

You know the saying: one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
So it really depends on your viewpoint.
Someone in Alderaan might think of the Rebel alliance as freedom fighters, while someone in Coruscant might think of them as terrorists.

[Thermodolia]

I think the Empire gets discounts for buying in bulk from pointy spaceships industries. The Republic got the same deal so probably.

Kaut Drive yards thinks otherwise.

Hey they didn't get nationalized so they better be thankful that the empire is even paying them

[Trotskylvania]

This is a bad distinction to make, and a post 9/11 one at that. Terrorism first entered popular lexicon thanks to The Great Terror from the French Revolution, and this usage remained remarkably consistent until very recently.

Terrorism has always meant that political application of violence towards civilian populations to instill fear or compliance. The Dam Busters raid was not terrorism, not because a state actor did it, but because it was a deliberate attack on the means of war production itself (the production of electricity and the downriver factories more broadly).

Interesting. So would, for example, the IRA killing British soldiers or police officers during the Troubles be considered an act of terror? I know that many of those used that term, possibly erroneously, to describe such attacks.

Given the goals and methods of the various IRAs, I'd describe them as partisans/guerillas more broadly. In essence, they were waging an asymmetric war against the British state and the Protestant dominated Northern Irish establishment, and they did use terrorism as part of that campaign. Their goal was, to use the phraseology of Mao's notion of a protracted people's war, was to create a political vacuum and attempt to fill that vacuum, eventually transitioning into a conventional war.

Compare that to Carlos the Jackal, who had an ultimately similar belief structure. But Carlos' MO was predominantly to engage in direct attacks against civilian targets, including hostage taking and bombings, to terrorize civilian populations and extract concessions from their governments. Carlos the Jackal and the groups he affiliated with tended to fit the mold of terrorism more directly.