Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader
The idea that there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is illogical as they are both the same thing: non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.
|
Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.
You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc. I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.
Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.
The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.
Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.