I saw an documentary about some Algerian Liberation Front fighter a couple of weeks ago. In this, he tried to point out that although France called the ALF terrorists, they indeed were fighting a war and that the only thing that differentiated the Algerians from the French soldiers was that the uniform.

At this point I am wondering when a terroristic activity becomes a freedom fight e.g. the Boston Tea Party was a "terrorist atack" but is honored as beginning of the independance (as is the the fight in Algeria), so were the partisans during WW2, is the ETA or PLO really a terrorist organization if one follows the logic above?
What is your oppinion?

__________________
_____________________________________________

1. The attacked party is always going to call the enemy terrorists, no matter what their actions are, since if they'd call them freedom fighters, they'd acknowledge their cause.

2. Freedom Fighters target an enemy occupying force, with the intention of being a large enough pain in the ass to drive the occupant away.
Terrorists either target the enemy population at home to apply political pressure, or they target whoever's available - even fellow countrymen - just to spread terror and chaos. (Whatever they hope to achieve with it)

So to me the difference is their choice and location of targets. Freedom Fighters fight at home and they fight/attack/ambush/blow up military targets.
The rest is terrorism.

Grisu:
ETA cannot be compared to the likes of the ALF, since the majority of the Basque population, be it nationalists or not, are against their actions. Their demands cannot be compared to those of the PLO or ALF.
The Basque country has been part of Spain for hundreds of years. The region is the most autonomous in the whole of Europe, and the fact that the main political parties and their voters condemn ETA should be proof enough that these killers are nothing more than terrorists.

They are simply different sides of the same coin.

One man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Can i assume then that you think ETA´s reasons for fighting are not as worthy as any other organization´s, just because it has less support?
Since when does the number of supporters validates a cause or not?
What´s so diferent between the claims of the PLO and those of ETA? Aren´t both fighting for the right to self rule? Haven´t both used the same methods?
You cannot dismiss a cause just because there are fewer supporters of a certain cause. It is not the "cause" that dictates it to be terrorism or not, it´s their methods and choice of action.
If ETA was to use only politicals tools to achieve their goals, wouldn´t their cause be a valid one?

Take the native americans. They are a minority within the US population. Aren´t they entitled to self rule as any other people on Earth? If they started a war with the US, would they still be terrorists?

"One man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter."
There´s a lot of truth in these words. No matter how small the support a group has, no matter how few there are who share their views, for them they will always be freedom fighters. While for the group or nation on the other side of the fence they will be terrorists, seperatists, rebels, insurgents or whatever.

What is "terrorism" anyway?
Is terrorism the use of bombs? The use of suicide bombers?
For me terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians, with whatever means, be it bombs strapped to a man´s chest or a B-52 carpet bombing a small city. Is terrorism ilegitime or illegal?
Not a bit more than any garden variety war, and not a bit less.Is it imoral? Yes it is, just as the use of cluster bombs in a "legal" war. But they don´t share the same "weight" for the masses.
If Hezzbollah or Hammas stopped targeting civilians, and started bombing only true military targets, would they still be terrorists?

And what´s a "freedom fighter"?
A freedom fighter is that who fights for the liberation and self determination of his group, tribe,people, or race.The number of supporters of a certain cause is irrelevant.
There are many ways of fighting. It could be through civil disobedience, political struggle, or armed fight. If a freedom fighter takes up arms, he doesn´t automatically turn into a terrorist.
As someone once said, "War is the continuation of politics through other means". But aren´t these other groups fighting for their liberation aswell? Isn´t Hammas fighting for the self determination of their people? Aren´t they fighting for their liberation aswell? So when did they stop being "freedom fighters" and became "terrorists"?
It´s obvious: it was their methods and choice of actions that tilted the scale.

Damn!! I´m rambling again...
:confused:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Barca,

I understand the issues involved with the Basque population and the lack of support by the population. I did not mean to compare the PLO, ALF, ETA or any other side by side. In each of the organizations is the thought that they are justified by the cause and justified in any means they chose. That is the portion I was trying to get to.
Nobody picked up on the terrorist attacks of the settlers in the american colonies against the UK. Is this country not founded based on acts of terrorism which is turned around as a "freedom fight"? How is that different from the ALF and the French in Algeria? How is it different (except by means) from what the Palestinians want, the Algerians received and the Americans taught????

__________________
_____________________________________________

The best definition of this I've seen came from a former member of the old SR boards. He said that being a freedom fighter doesen't necessarily exclude one from the use of terroristic tactics. (ie, targeting of civilians) Can't one be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time?

I don't see how you can fight an oppressor by bombing civilians.
Being a freedom fighter doesn't exclude the use of "cheap" tactics (like laying bombs), but if you don't target the enemy anymore but civilians instead, you're a terrorist.

Eta have no support from the people they are trying to liberate.
Their methods of indiscriminate killings and bombings, kidnappings and extorsion of money from Basque industralists, money claimed to be for helping a cause they dont believe in, thus obliging them to cooperate or suffer retribution. Is that enough to call them terrorists?
My definition of terrorism is more or less what you said, inflicting pain intentionally on civilians, yet my point here was to argue that the situation of ETA differs from that of the PLO. The PLO enjoys support to the extent in which one must question the notion of a terrorist population, in so far as they applaud the actions taken by said groups, as they believe it to be a necessity, in terms of warfare and of retribution. As one of Hamas leaders said: If a Palestinian mother cries, then a jewish mother must cry too