No further info necessery
2006-07-20 23:07:07 · 18 answers · asked by Darkness 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Principles and ethics.
Do they attempt to limit the harm their actions cause to civilians?
Do they accept the will of the majority of their people (such as the elections in Iraq)?
Are their political goals worthy? (The enemy in Iraq wants to make themselves dictators)
Are they actually fighting for antibody's freedom? And if so - what kind of freedom?
The worthiness of a cause can be determined by the quality of the people who are willing to actively fight for that cause.
If the fighters of one side are facilitating elections, taking measures to limit civilian harm, and spending personal money to provide charitable aid - then I would consider these people to be likely 'good guys.'
If they hide behind civilians, oppose free elections, extort money from the local people and attack civilians - then they and their cause is of doubtful morality.
2006-07-21 02:56:14 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Was this asked just so Hollowcost could post that trite again?
A terrorist targets civilians. A freedom fighter targets military/police.
The 'insurgents' in Iraq are technically terrorists. The sectarian violence is terrorist in nature. Another important distinguishing factor is the matter of uniforms. Terrorists dress like civilians so that they can melt back into the crowd. Freedom fighters will wear a uniform, or patch of some kind during their operations so that there target can identify them as a resistance fighter and not just see a civilian firing at them. This might be why Israel is so hard on Palestine. Palestinian guerrillas don't wear uniforms so Israeli troops cannot trust any Palestinian civilian. The result is that they MUST be hard on Palestinian civilians because they never know who is going to shoot or bomb them. Yet another way that you have brought this all upon yourself.
2006-07-21 06:21:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on several things, and in most cases could a group could be defined by more than one of the terms. A general rule to go by is that a freedom fighter or resistance fighter operates within their own country and limits their attacks to military or government targets. The goal being to drive out an occupying force. Terrorists will typically target civilians and civilian businesses with the goal to scare the population.
As an example. A group of people who attack a military convoy in Iraq could easily be described as Freedom fighters. Although if that same group detonates a truck bomb in a market place with the intent of killing the civilians, they become terrorists.
To be honest the term Terrorist is very open to interpratation. You will see that in many circles outside of the media, what most people call terrorism is refered to as unconventional warfare.
2006-07-21 14:28:59 · answer #3 · answered by Mohammed F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorist attacks civilians, other countries in the other country, uses their own women and children as shields and weapons.
Freedom fighter attacks military targets, attacks invading countries within the freedom fighter's country, and hides and protects their women and children.
Enough of a difference for me. Amazing how often this question is asked. You might want to see if it's been asked before unless you are just attempting to spread propaganda.
2006-07-21 06:11:20 · answer #4 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A terrorist targets non-military/ non-government targets. Ie, civilians.
So somebody blowing up a wedding party with a suicide vest would be a terrorist, while somebody attacking a military establishment or a government while taking care to minimize collateral damage could be called a resistance fighter.
2006-07-21 06:11:07 · answer #5 · answered by double_nubbins 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a freedom fighter would be like the french resistance against the nazi's inn ww2. but terrorists are those who wish to push their ideas down people's throats and if they dont listen, they blow up a bomb
so according to this thinking, the soldiers now that are stemming the tide against isalmic fundamentalism are actually freedom fighters!
so support them all the way!
i wont want to wake up and have to go to some mosque to pray because i've been FORCED too instead of doing it on my own free will
God Damn islamic fundamentalists.
2006-07-21 11:00:32 · answer #6 · answered by GEN Gamer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists intentionally target innocent people and children. Freedom fighters target military targets. There is no honor in a terrorist's mind. they are only interested in bringing totalitarian rule to everyone who does not agree with their warped view of the world.
2006-07-21 06:14:54 · answer #7 · answered by opie with an attitude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
terrorists kill indescriminately and don'tcare if anyr goal is achieved,since their real goal is to terrorise children and old women. freedom fighters and resistance fighters are trying to freetheir country from a dictator or bad government. Hesbollah are terrorists, since Israel already gave them back their land butthey continue to bomb, kidnap and kill innocent civilians.Then the cowards go hide behind theskirts of old women and little girls.
2006-07-21 06:58:25 · answer #8 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't consider the guy who blew up an IED in front of a group of kids to try to hit my convoy a freedom fighter.
2006-07-21 07:11:08 · answer #9 · answered by 34andlivingwithmomanddad 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well there nothing to seperate them. Just like the goverment, the terrorist/freedom fighter or whatever you call them are all murderers!
All weapon whould be abolish!
2006-07-21 06:32:50 · answer #10 · answered by Zal I 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋