Please excuse what is perhaps the flogging of a dead horse, but I for one am still confused by some critical terminology used in news broadcasts and political debate.

So what is a freedom fighter (and is it a redundant term in 2008 - have such folk exited the planet)?
And what is a terrorist, arguably the most overused word in modern debate that lacks a suitable universal definition imho?
What is anactivist and is it a useful term?
What is an insurgent and is the concept useful in international debate, if only for the undecided or mentally lazy?

Can we test any forthcoming definitions to highlight their possible strengths and weaknesses? For instance against:
# Nelson Mandela
# Lech Walesa
# George Washington

A freedom fighter is kind of like a fire fighter. He tries to fight freedom until it is put out, and then suggests preventative measures so that freedom never has to happen in the first place.

I'll give others a chance with the other definitions.

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Post of the week:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.

Freedom fighter- Someone that fights for someone's freedom, usually their own. In this context violently I suppose.
Terrorist- Someone that seeks to inspire terror through their acts, usually violent. Does it so often the name title sticks. Can be a freedom fighter.
Activist- Strikes me as someone that persues a cause in less violent ways, usually political ones. Yes, it describes Ayers better, so theres one use.
Insurgent- I think you have to be a member of an insurgency to get this one- a local armed uprising I think. May often use tactics of/similar to terrorists. Useful? Yeah can be, denotes complexity.

Mendela- Activist as he was non-violent?
Walesa- Thanks that was a fun learning experience. Going with activist as he too wasn't violent?
Washington- Ah rebel maybe? I feel like the terrorist/freedom fighter thing has more to do with subversion in a predominately hostile enviroment, not a general armed uprising. Course the details are scetchy for me.

Insurgents are indeed part of an insurgency. Which is defined as a violent internal uprising against a soverign government that is not deemed to be on sufficiant scale to be considered a "revolution".

Freedom FIghters- In principle this should be indaviduals opposed in armed resistance to an Oppressor. In practice this is what people who like them would call what others might consider assasins, terrorists, or Rebels. Insurgents even.

Activists are trying to bring about political change. But the term generally means they aren't doing so through armed conflict. It's a little grey how much you can get away with before picking up other labels. For example those guys throwing acid on the whaling ships are starting to slip into terrorist territory.

Terrorists can be members of any of the above three really. It just means that they're now trying to use terror attacks against civilians in order to use fear to acheive their aims. A key distinction is that they're going after civilians deliberatly for the end result of getting the fear they want. That's important because, unfortunitly, killing civilans accidentally or when unvoidable in the persuit of a relevant target (on a bridge at the wrong time).

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Post of the week:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.

Wiki def: "An insurgency is a violent internal uprising against a sovereign government that lacks the organization of a revolution."

Wiki goes further: "Its use is subject to heavy political bias. It should not be confused with, or interchanged with the term "resistance." Complicating matters and blurring the definition of the term, it is frequently used as a label for the violent conflict in Iraq, which involves elements of insurgency and an armed resistance movement."

So Wiki suggests that the term "insurgent" that we so often hear of the news contains heavy political bias and is a case of media blurring. Why the need for blurring? Wiki provides a hint, because the most obvious term to use would be "resistance fighter/member" but if that term were used it would seem to convey some justification for the "insurgency".

They are not rebelling against what most Iraqis would consider to be a "sovereign government" (or is my political slip showing?), so it follows that they are NOT insurgents no matter how many times the BBC calls them that.

So is it reasonable that the "insurgents" in Iraq would be more aptly described as resistance fighters?

Until the term is better defined, the jury has still to be out as to whether they are also "freedom fighters".

Eh words are labels we give to things, so the labels will differ between people- I'm confident every one of them sees themselves as being noble, if they think that far.

Couldn't we say though that insurgency is the most neutral word to use? Freedom fighter and terrorist both seem too loaded- I hesitate to use either, as I really don't know enough about them, their motivatiosn nor the conditions on the ground. Besideds, it'll always be a mix if we consider their motivation/morals.

But yeah there is bias certainly- not the full throated one of the early days of the war, but it'll be a long time before 'freedom-fighter' gets the same credence in the media as 'terrorist' or 'insurgent'- a Biblacally long time.

I guess the problem is that those terms are not mutually exclusive.
I'd have to figure that all terrorists and freedom fighters are a type of activist.
Insurgents can be freedom fighters or terrorists or not.
Terrorists can be freedom fighters or not.

Someone who uses terror as a method to end oppression while fighting a colonizing power is an activist, a terrorist, a freedom fighter, and an insurgent.

Not very helpful, is it?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

This is a good question, and I must say the definitions are not clear, they even change within a person. Take Nelson Mandela. He was indeed a terrorists, as he was not always peaceful - he founded the military wing of the ANC. Then he did change his views, and became an activist. Some described him as freedom fighter, but he was also called a terrorists (and the ANC was, untill a month or so ago, still listed as a terorist group by the US state departement).

I dfind these term somewhat unhepfull - for instance it seems countries are allowed to negotiate with freedom fighters, but not with terrorists.

I agree, some clarification is needed on these terms.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”