Freedom Fighter vs Terrorist

[Major]

If you ask me my favorite all the time bollywood movie, i would say its Rang de Basanti, as it tells an old story of Bhagat singh and his group and resonate with the contemporary world who face their own struggle.

In the past world, Bhagat Singh and his group are young students who are fighting against the British by challenging their rules and taking back whats their by attacking trains and buy ammo to fight the british rulers

Eventually in the movie, the group of present day students take up arms against the govt when there friend dies due to corruption and no investigation in the matter.

Interestingly, Bhagat Singh thinks what he did was right. The group of students in present day thinks what they are doing is right. The British govt thinks they are traitors and terrorists, and the present day India govt also believes this contemporary freedom fighters are terrorists.


Today, we see the Israel and Palestine conflict. Hamas gets labelled as a terrorist group by the same Indians who view Bhagat Singh as a freedom Fighter.

Kashmir Mujahideens are viewed as freedom fighters by some, and also viewed by terrorists by others. Remember Burhan Wani, some called him a freedom fighter while some called him a terrorist.

So my question is, what is a the definition for a freedom fighter? How can you differentiate between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist?

By today's definition, would Bhagat singh be considered a terrorist?

How different was Bhagat Singh, Burhan Wani and Hamas? What makes the former a freedom fighter and the latter two as terrorist?

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

A freedom fighter is someone who attacks the army and the oppressors and a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory. Hamas keeps on launching rockets in Tel Aviv in residential areas or the places where innocent civilians live.

 

[Major]

A freedom fighter is someone who attacks the army and the oppressors and a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory. Hamas keeps on launching rockets in Tel Aviv in residential areas or the places where innocent civilians live.

So who is an opressor?

In the second part you are saying terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. Now Israel has attacked the Palestinian arabs who live around walls, would the Israeli's be considered as terrorist?

 

[golagunda]

A freedom fighter is someone who attacks the army and the oppressors and a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory. Hamas keeps on launching rockets in Tel Aviv in residential areas or the places where innocent civilians live.

By this definition India is completely wrong in calling Pathankot and Pulwama attacks terrorism. The were attacks on non-civilian military bases by Kashmiri freedom fighters.

 

[street cricketer]

Mostly depends on if your people or your allies are oppressed or is actually the oppressor. So for Pakistanis - Kashmiri fighters, Hamas, Afghan Taliban, etc. are freedom fighters while the Mukti Bahini, PKK, LTTE, etc. are terrorists. For Indians, the Mukti Bahini were freedom fighters while the Kashmiri rebel militants are terrorists. Depends on which side of the line you stand on political issues really which tends to almost always be decided by fierce nationalism.

But I think we can all agree that there's no grey area in considering the guys who did the Mumbai attacks, Peshawar school attacks and twin tower attacks unanimously as terrorists.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

People who defend their home from invading forces are freedom fighters.

 

[Zaz]

A freedom fighter is someone who attacks the army and the oppressors and a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory. Israel keeps on launching rockets in Gaza in residential areas or the places where innocent civilians live.

Corrected

 

[Tubs]

A freedom fighter is someone who attacks the army and the oppressors and a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory. Hamas keeps on launching rockets in Tel Aviv in residential areas or the places where innocent civilians live.

To be fair, you can be sympathetic to Palestine but against Hamas.

 

[Zaz]

Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist according to the west...just saying

 

[golagunda]

Mostly depends on if your people or your allies are oppressed or is actually the oppressor. So for Pakistanis - Kashmiri fighters, Hamas, Afghan Taliban, etc. are freedom fighters while the Mukti Bahini, PKK, LTTE, etc. are terrorists. For Indians, the Mukti Bahini were freedom fighters while the Kashmiri rebel militants are terrorists. Depends on which side of the line you stand on political issues really which tends to almost always be decided by fierce nationalism.

But I think we can all agree that there's no grey area in considering the guys who did the Mumbai attacks, Peshawar school attacks and twin tower attacks unanimously as terrorists.

Largely agree but the use of the term ‘terrorist’ is much more nuanced. The word terrorist is a loaded term and in the post nine eleven world is often used as an instrument of foreign policy. Nationalism and emotions may underlie the use of this term among the masses, but nation states don’t use this term lightly. Calling Kashmiri militants ‘terrorists’ for instance is not only a matter of nationalism or which side you are on but also a very deliberate strategy. It is a convenient way to delegitimize a movement, adding a religious angle to it and linking it to other largely unrelated organizations like ISIS.

On the flip side let us take the example of Pakistan. Ask an average Pakistani about the militants who fought against our army in the former tribal areas or Baloch separatists, and we will be quick to call them terrorists. However, the Pakistani state was always very reluctant to call them ‘terrorists’. Throughout the 2000’s when the fighting in these areas was very intense, our state always used more neutral terms like ‘militants’ or ‘miscreants’. There was no way we could call them ‘terrorists’ without also delegitimizing our support for Kashmiri’s and our complicated relationship with the Afghan militants. It was only after major civilian targets like APS were attacked, that the term ‘terrorist’ was used. As a Pakistani, I have no issues calling someone fighting against my country a separatist, rebel or militant because I find the word ‘terrorist’ extremely problematic unless applied to very specific groups like those that attacked APS or other civilian targets. The British call what happened 1857 a ‘mutiny’. If something like that happens today it would be very conveniently labelled ‘terrorism’.

 

[guna]

Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist according to the west...just saying

Only according to Whites in South Africa. They got rightfully banned for bringing in Apartheid system.

 

[PakLFC]

Freedom fighter is someone who kills the oppressors who are invaders on their land. A terrorist is someone who kill's anyone or anything who challenges their presence in that area. A terrorist contradicts history even the word's and promises of his predecessors to further their own agenda.

 

[Giannis]

A freedom fighter is someone who attacks the army and the oppressors and a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent civilians. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory. Hamas keeps on launching rockets in Tel Aviv in residential areas or the places where innocent civilians live.

So I guess when the army attacks innocent civilians then that makes them terrorist like what India's been doing in Kashmir

 

[Finisher]

He was declared a terrorist by the British so I guess he shouldn't be called a freedom fighter by the Indians

 

[RexRex]

He was declared a terrorist by the British so I guess he shouldn't be called a freedom fighter by the Indians

He was fighting for freedom. The British Raj wasn't a democratically elected administration, they ruled India by force.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Definition of a terroirst

"A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Freedom fighter

"A freedom fighter is someone who participates in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment. "

Pretty clear tbh.

 

[Major]

He was fighting for freedom. The British Raj wasn't a democratically elected administration, they ruled India by force.

umm bro, so is this the case of palestine and kashmiris.

iff those are terrorist, than bhagat singh was also a terrorist by same defination.

 

[Major]

Definition of a terroirst

"A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Freedom fighter

"A freedom fighter is someone who participates in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment. "

Pretty clear tbh.

bhagat singh had John Saunders Killed, he had Channan Singh killed through Azad. He threw two bombs in Delhi Assembly.

All these acts were unlawful according to that time.

Its not pretty clear. Indians are useless in this discussion because of their biasness to such discussions.

 

[RexRex]

umm bro, so is this the case of palestine and kashmiris.

iff those are terrorist, than bhagat singh was also a terrorist by same defination.

Kashmiris were ruled by force ? Indian govt didnt allow them to secede from the union but they could have elected their state government until August 2019 when article 370 was revoked by the Modi goverment and J&K made into a union territory. However they've said state elections will be restored after things calm down. No idea when.

Palestine situation is a lot more nuanced & complicated. Plenty of history you need to know.

 

[Major]

Kashmiris were ruled by force ? Indian govt didnt allow them to secede from the union but they could have elected their state government until August 2019 when article 370 was revoked by the Modi goverment and J&K made into a union territory. However they've said state elections will be restored after things calm down. No idea when.

Palestine situation is a lot more nuanced & complicated. Plenty of history you need to know.

Kashmiris were not allowed to take part in plebiscite

Palestinians did not have a choice of whether to give their land to Israelis. I know my history, question is can you look at your history without the Indian nationalism ? we all know the answer so dont bother answering

 

[RexRex]

Kashmiris were not allowed to take part in plebiscite

Palestinians did not have a choice of whether to give their land to Israelis. I know my history, question is can you look at your history without the Indian nationalism ? we all know the answer so dont bother answering

As for Palestine, its not that simple. I don't support the hardline stance of Netanyahu but the reason West Bank and Gaza are in the hands of Israel right now is because it was territory that was captured in the six day war started in 1967 by its Arab neighbours. Israel did not start that war. Learn your history.

 

[Major]

As for Palestine, its not that simple. I don't support the hardline stance of Netanyahu but the reason West Bank and Gaza are in the hands of Israel right now is because it was territory that was captured in the six day war started in 1967 by its Arab neighbours. Israel did not start that war. Learn your history.

British Raj wasn't a democratically elected administration while India is for Kashmiris.

Again before telling others to learn the history, the 6 days war was fought in 1967, israelis had by 1947 captured 50% of the land area. Israelis were the outsiders, 6 days war was the result of the issues that happened 20-30 years before it.

If Pakistan India had a war, you think any land invaded and captured would allow them to hold on to it?

Before telling others to learn history, its better for yourself to know hisotry

 

[RexRex]

if you cant be bothered than dont come here and say British Raj wasn't a democratically elected administration while India is for Kashmiris.

Again before telling others to learn the history, the 6 days war was fought in 1967, israelis had by 1947 captured 50% of the land area. Israelis were the outsiders, 6 days war was the result of the issues that happened 20-30 years before it.

If Pakistan India had a war, you think any land invaded and captured would allow them to hold on to it?

Before telling others to learn history, its better for yourself to know hisotry

Please don't go down that road and pretend to be virtuous on this issue. I can get into long discussions about how Balochistan was forcibly made a part of Pakistan but I won't.

 

[Major]

Please don't go down that road and pretend to be virtuous on this issue. I can get into long discussions about how Balochistan was forcibly made a part of Pakistan but I won't.

as expected, cant back up what you claim, bring in another topic

 

[RexRex]

as expected, cant back up what you claim, bring in another topic

I can actually. I am just not in the mood to go on a detailed rant about Kashmir and Palestine. Maybe later in the week.

 

[Stewie]

Didn’t Bhagat Singh and his friend also kill a policeman who was Indian? He was just doing his job. Is that terrorism or murder or justified as a part of the freedom struggle?

 

[Major]

Didn’t Bhagat Singh and his friend also kill a policeman who was Indian? He was just doing his job. Is that terrorism or murder or justified as a part of the freedom struggle?

they killed a white policeman, also involved in looting a train aswell for money.

 

[RexRex]

Didn’t Bhagat Singh and his friend also kill a policeman who was Indian? He was just doing his job. Is that terrorism or murder or justified as a part of the freedom struggle?

British Raj = essentially a dictatorship
India = democracy with federalism

If people can't make out the difference between the two, there's not much I can say.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Did a plebiscite take place in British India before giving land of the Sindhi Hindus or Hindu Bengalis to a Muslim nation?

Everyday i thank my ancestors and the then Bengali Hindu political leadership that they fought hard for the Bengali Hindu homeland and because of its success we have a home in India.

Did anyone ask Jews before taking over their homeland and expelling them from there? Ohhh it was glorious conquest for many here.


All these were political decisions taken by the imperialist government.

So just like they created Pakistan, UN created Israel.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Anyone who deliberately attacks civilians is a terrorist. I dont care who it is or what religion they profess or what country they belong to.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Did a plebiscite take place in British India before giving land of the Sindhi Hindus or Hindu Bengalis to a Muslim nation?

Everyday i thank my ancestors and the then Bengali Hindu political leadership that they fought hard for the Bengali Hindu homeland and because of its success we have a home in India.

Did anyone ask Jews before taking over their homeland and expelling them from there? Ohhh it was glorious conquest for many here.


All these were political decisions taken by the imperialist government.

So just like they created Pakistan, UN created Israel.

I dont think you understand history as much as you think you do

 

[IndoorCricket]

bhagat singh had John Saunders Killed, he had Channan Singh killed through Azad. He threw two bombs in Delhi Assembly.

All these acts were unlawful according to that time.

Its not pretty clear. Indians are useless in this discussion because of their biasness to such discussions. I would prefer if Indians dont even bother commenting on this thread

As someone who lost a know one to a terrorist attack on my city and narrowly escaping another terrorist attack. I am more than qualified to discuss what terrorism is. Stop gross generalization of 1.3 billion people and be inclusive of other viewpoints.

 

[Technics 1210]

As someone who lost a know one to a terrorist attack on my city and narrowly escaping another terrorist attack. I am more than qualified to discuss what terrorism is. Stop gross generalization of 1.3 billion people and be inclusive of other viewpoints.

Modi green lit the mass murder of Muslims in Gujrat and was labelled a religious terrorist and consequently banned from the UK and USA. You now vote for him and support him, and profess his ideology. This makes you a terrorist sympathizer, and when you are a terrorist sympathizer, you have zero ground to moan about any other terror attacks.

It is you who should stop the gross generalisation of Muslims around the world, your government should stop the gross generalisation of Muslims around the world, your RSS brethren should stop gross generalisation of Muslims around the world.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Anyone who deliberately attacks civilians is a terrorist. I dont care who it is or what religion they profess or what country they belong to.

Good this would apply to a lot of Baloochis then..

 

[Romali_rotti]

I dont think you understand history as much as you think you do

Just to touch base further on this.

So you are saying muslims were in Israel or the land which is now Israel from the very beginning before Jews came along?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Just to touch base further on this.

So you are saying muslims were in Israel or the land which is now Israel from the very beginning before Jews came along?

The Jews living in Israel have no ancestral link to the holy land, they are from Europe and elsewhere. If you believe a book should allow people to take others land, would you be happy to move your family to a refugee camp if in future someone stronger claims your land as theirs?

As for the topic. Anyone who fights against occupation is a freedom fighter. Its simple enough, the clue is in the term.

 

[Romali_rotti]

The Jews living in Israel have no ancestral link to the holy land, they are from Europe and elsewhere. If you believe a book should allow people to take others land, would you be happy to move your family to a refugee camp if in future someone stronger claims your land as theirs?

As for the topic. Anyone who fights against occupation is a freedom fighter. Its simple enough, the clue is in the term.

That doesn't answer my question brother.

I am asking; were muslims present in the land, what is now Israel before the Jews?

A yes or no would suffice.

Once I get your answer I will ask the second question.

 

[Technics 1210]

No one should ever let a Modi/RSS apologist and sympathiser lecture anyone on terrorism.

Remember, RSS are using terrorism against religious minorities in India!

 

[Technics 1210]

Khalistanis are freedom fighters, fighting oppression from Hindutva terrorism on their own land.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Good this would apply to a lot of Baloochis then..

Occupied Kashmiris too

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Just to touch base further on this.

So you are saying muslims were in Israel or the land which is now Israel from the very beginning before Jews came along?

I dont think you really know about history either.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I dont think you really know about history either.

I don't know much about the Abrahamic history.

Can you answer my question since you seem to know it?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I don't know much about the Abrahamic history.

Can you answer my question since you seem to know it?

You can start another thread and someone will answer.

So far you have randomly mentioned baloch and then asked random questions unrelated to the OP.

Let us discuss the topic here and we can teach you abrahamic history elsewhere.

 

[uppercut]

Did a plebiscite take place in British India before giving land of the Sindhi Hindus or Hindu Bengalis to a Muslim nation?

Everyday i thank my ancestors and the then Bengali Hindu political leadership that they fought hard for the Bengali Hindu homeland and because of its success we have a home in India.

Did anyone ask Jews before taking over their homeland and expelling them from there? Ohhh it was glorious conquest for many here.


All these were political decisions taken by the imperialist government.

So just like they created Pakistan, UN created Israel.

I dare anyone to challenge this post with proper facts. Please quote me if you think you have facts to refute this post by cricketjoshila

And I totally agree with you about your point on our ancestors. Similarly my ancestors never ever accepted any Non-Hindu ruler and only due to current day hyper awareness do I understand and realize their immense contributions. I remain eternally grateful to them for standing their ground under extreme circumstances. Wish there were more !!

 

[IndoorCricket]

Modi green lit the mass murder of Muslims in Gujrat and was labelled a religious terrorist and consequently banned from the UK and USA. You now vote for him and support him, and profess his ideology. This makes you a terrorist sympathizer, and when you are a terrorist sympathizer, you have zero ground to moan about any other terror attacks.

It is you who should stop the gross generalisation of Muslims around the world, your government should stop the gross generalisation of Muslims around the world, your RSS brethren should stop gross generalisation of Muslims around the world.

Mate. My state is not even ruled by BJP. And we dont want BJP in our state. BTW Pakistan recently played in our city and they loved the support they got it here. Show me a post where I made gross generalisation of Muslims. RSS and Modi seems to be living rent free in your head.

 

[Bhaijaan]

The answer depends on your perspective of the world, the history and the future. Pretty much like your perspective of the world and diet influences your opinion on whether it’s ok to breed and kill animals for food. How come the idea of killing animals for food is absolutely disgusting for some people while for others it’s an absolute no bother whatsoever? Because their sensitivity to the subject is different, or you can say they have been psychologically conditioned differently on this topic.

To a larger extent, humans are conditioned to respect present day sovereignty of nations, and to ignore whatever existed previously. This then influences our definition of what is considered terrorism and it will always be in conflict with someone else’s opinion coming from a different religion, nationality, perspective. It’s impossible to have any consensus on this.

The sad reality is that the world as we know today has been built and reshaped through force & bloodshed way more than through harmony and collaboration. Countless indegenous communities have been displaced, eradicated to build some of the glorious empires of today.

We flatter ourselves by attempting to show morality when in the historical context it is often misplaced and hypocritical.

 

[Technics 1210]

Mate. My state is not even ruled by BJP. And we dont want BJP in our state. BTW Pakistan recently played in our city and they loved the support they got it here. Show me a post where I made gross generalisation of Muslims. RSS and Modi seems to be living rent free in your head.

Good to know your state is fighting against Hindutva terrorism too.

And you are correct, we must not give RSS terrorism the platform they desire to promote their ideology by mentioning their existence in every post.

 

[KB]

Can an individual/organisation not be both?

Terrorism is used pejoratively and therefore most terrorists prefer alternative terms that indicate resistance, defence, fighting for freedom or another ideal. But the important point here is that terrorists don’t see themselves as embodying evil, and are not in their minds causing chaos for chaos sake. They are carrying out their acts in the name of a higher purpose, however warped we may think that is.

Roger Griffin (author of Terrorist Creed) reminds us that when terrorism as a term first came into political usage, during the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, “it was not describe violence against the state, but violence inflicted by the state on its own citizens…Thus terrorism originally referred exclusively to what is now called ‘state terror’.”

If state terror is one category, most people on this thread are more focussed on non-state terror. For non-state terror, Griffin offers, in my opinion at least, a useful definition:

"Terrorism is a generic term for extremely heterogeneous acts of violence originating from an asymmetrical relationship of force with the perceived source of oppression or decadence, and carried out within civic space (or at least outside the traditional contexts/spaces of military conflict), generally targeting non-combatants. The violence has a direct object, the human or material targets of the attack which are typically destroyed, and an indirect object, the third parties for whom the violence is a ‘message’, a performative, semiotic act conceived to force them to change their behaviour, policies, actions, or way of thinking by undermining their sense of security and disseminating fear of further outrages. Terrorist acts thus have a purpose beyond their immediate destructiveness as part of a campaign to exploit the particular psychological impact of unpredictable attacks by an invisible ‘enemy’, namely a diffuse sense of anxiety, insecurity, and terror, so as to achieve pragmatic, instrumental goals. At the same time they have for the terrorists themselves utopian/metapolitical objectives invisible to outsiders, and their enactment thus fulfils a particular transcendent ‘mission’ or suprapersonal goal to which the terrorist feels fanatically committed.”

If we go with the above, then the distinction between terrorism and freedom fighters dissolves.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Did a plebiscite take place in British India before giving land of the Sindhi Hindus or Hindu Bengalis to a Muslim nation?

Everyday i thank my ancestors and the then Bengali Hindu political leadership that they fought hard for the Bengali Hindu homeland and because of its success we have a home in India.

Did anyone ask Jews before taking over their homeland and expelling them from there? Ohhh it was glorious conquest for many here.


All these were political decisions taken by the imperialist government.

So just like they created Pakistan, UN created Israel.

Why would you need a Bengali Hindu homeland in a secular country?