What's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists?

Question

Do you consider people in say, Iraq, who attack ONLY military targets (i.e. don't bomb or terrorize their own people) terrorists or rebels fighting an occupying power? Regardless of who is right or wrong in this war (there is rarely any right or wrong in war anyway) do you think Iraqis have the right to defend their country, as long as they aren't terrorizing civilians (either within Iraq or outside of it)? Your thoughts.

Answer 1

They are all terrorists. The Iraq government was elected by the people after two free elections. These “rebels” aren't just attacking the military they are attacking the first real government that was popularly elected in Iraq. In effect they are attacking themselves. They ARE terrorizing civilians and their own government, and they no longer care if their targets are civilian or military.

Saddam was a violent dictator for a reason. He had to sit on the Shiite, and Sunni rebels, and he sat very hard on them. Notice how the violence has suddenly turned sectarian. This is not a result of the US invasion, as much as it is a long-standing religious feud. The only reason the Kurds aren’t involved is that most of them live together in the north and are keeping a low profile.

I don't think that it was right to go into Iraq; the intelligence just didn't support it. But, now that we are there we have to finish the mission. When Russian invaded Afghanistan it turned into a Vietnam for them. We thought that if we just got them out of there that things would settle down. Instead we got the Talibain, and the high-jacking of 911. If we were to pull out of Iraq now then the country would be torn by civil war and after countless people are killed then we will probably end up with a government like the Taliban. The Iranians will make sure of it.

Any way once the violence starts it soon gets out of control. The Viet Cong, the Palestinians and other rebel groups in the past started out attacking military targets. They got a lot of collateral damage along the way. Then when their war wasn't going well enough for them they turned to civilian targets. It was like this in Nicaragua, Cambodia, and it was probably the same in the Roman Empire. Look at the US Civil War. General Sherman burned Atlanta as part of his “March to the Sea.” The only reason that wasn’t called a terrorist act is because the Union won. The outlaw Jessie James got his start in the Civil War as a Southern Raider. He stole supplies and terrorized people to help his cause, he attacked mostly Northerners, but if his group was in the south and they needed supplies then he raided from them as well.

The US is the only government that makes precision weapons, which can be used to ONLY attack civilian targets. Most of the world still uses dumb bombs, missiles, and bullets. So when an attack is made a lot of innocent people get hurt. Look at the Palestinians they fire rockets into Israel, and don’t care where they land, as long as they kill Jews.

The only “rebels” are those that win the war and call it a rebellion, like England and the United States. Everybody else that revolts against their government is a terrorist. The Boston Tea Party wasn’t a peaceful demonstration. The ships with the cargo weren’t deserted; they had to be guarded by someone. Call them insurgents, call them rebels, call them religious extremists; they are all terrorists.

Answer 2

If we put a side how these names are used always by aggression countries, occupiers and shallow emperors; We can find the meaning of the words. Freedom fighters : Fight for freedom (of their countries or their people or their concepts related to freedom) that means the enemy may be occupier or aggressor or racial. These are all only examples and not all cases but you can imagine similar cases. Terrorism : Is any action to cause terror and it is more suitable to call it terrorism when it's against defenseless humans (9/11 or terrorism happened in Egypt or countries who is not harming civilians) You can't consider a country with almost all residents participating in the military actions one way or another as civilians. You can't consider someone is taking someones property like normal civilian because a group of people and their media said so, but you can consider 9/11 for example as terror attack like any incident happened in Egypt before. On the other side you can't tell Palestinian civilians, Iraqi civilians or Afghani or Pakistani civilians how to defend their lives. Simply when someone is facing death anyway, he may do anything to live or let his loved ones live. If the official military of a country is bombing civilians and they call it military operations even if it's crimes and the victims has no support or defense, they have to fight in similar way to stop their enemy of course. In all cases to decide who is who, you have to look who was the aggressor to the other's freedom. Edit: It seems you didn't understand my opinion well. I didn't defend harming civilians of course. I mean when you put someone's life in danger and no one can defend him, he will not think very well what to do !! unless you can't accept this natural logic. If you think that Palestinians can get weapons or they have an army who can follow rules and military rules, that would be your mistake not mine. According to your opinion: If we suppose a little kid from your family if shot with a bullet in the head and you saw the soldier who killed him later changing his uniform and walking freely and laughing proudly of what he did, you'll not try to harm him. Fine I got that you'll go to the supermarket and buy few F16 to bomb that army who recruited that killer.

Answer 3

Read your yankee history books and all of the terrorists that fought the British rule for American Independence became freedom fighters after they won. That is the difference.Winners write the history books and Iraq is no different, the suicide bombers will become great patriots if their side gets to write the history of the U.S. occupation in the same way that Americans regard the heroes of the American revolution. I am not saying they are right or wrong but terrorists become freedom fighters if they win.

Answer 4

Freedom fighters don't typically do terrorist attacks. And seem to only go after military targets.

Iraqis have the right to defend their country but it seems that the masses want what we are giving them. The fighters there are attacking their own people for the most part and mainly civilians. Thus they fall under terrorist.

Answer 5

Let's see...

Freedom fighters would attack the army of the ruler who is oppressing them.

Terrorists would attack children in schools or people eating in restaurants or riding buses. Terrorists would blow up their own religion's holy places so that innocent people worshipping there would get killed.

Freedom fighters are willing to give up their own life to help others.

Terrorists try to kill and hurt other people, even if they lose their own lives in the process.

Answer 6

I hardly expected them to lie down and let the Americans in...

Problem is most military targets are too well protected so the civilians end up getting it...

Answer 7

Freedom fighters are on "our" side, whichever that side is. That's why I always vote to save the children, whereas my opponents' stance is obviously anti-children.

Answer 8

I think they r no diff.

Terrorists often believe they r fighting for their freedom anway.
Its ridiculous but they somehow believe they r fighting for a gd cause

Answer 9

It's easy. The difference is on what side of the loaded gun you are.

Answer 10

hey.. you kidding?? freedom fighters help us n fight against terrorism!! they are jst opposite to each others..!! got it??