2006-09-21 10:42:18 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Good question. China has a one million man army. They could invade the USA with half there force in reserve. They also have 5 times more tanks than we do. We have 147,000 troops in Iraq. Only about 8000 in Afghanistan. If the USA were to be invaded from a landing in Canada. I would fight to the death. The invasion force would call me a "terrorist". Bush would refer to me as a "insurgent" I would be in fact a "freedom fighter". In Iraq over 300,000 civilians have died since Desert Storm, no one knows how many were in fact "terrorist". NO one.
2006-09-21 13:50:51 · answer #1 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
A terrorist is anyone that uses violent terrorist tactics to achieve a political goal.
Martin Luther King was a freedom fighter not these lunatics that kill and injure innocent people. They are just ignorant fools void of back bone and conscience.
2006-09-21 10:58:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I asked this about the US war of independence -
Its all a question of who wins the war and who rights the history books.
However in the present time when we have so much media access to the atrocities committed by all sides - an example being the widespread use of torture and cruel and inhuman punishment by all sides that it becomes uncomfortable viewing.
The west was supposed to come in as a "civilising" influence but what we have is the use of widespread torture as a means of control of the population - the deaths of civilains etc.
I think we were all hoping for a clear difference between the good and the bad but that is not what we got.
Targetting civilains is an interesting issue. By the time of world war two it was realised that they way to win wars -especially with access to aeroplanes - was to break the will of the civilian populaion not the army - as they often got locked in stalemate. That is why england and germany bombed each other. They were deliberately targetting civilians because they thought that would end the war quicker!
Whilst government's like to portray "modern" wars as being scientifically and technologicially and information based superior to avoid civilian casualities - it makes us feel more comfortable-
the reality is that civilians are routinely killed both accidentally (but forseably) and deliberately.
No government can say that it has never targetted civilians or decided that significant amounts of collatoral damage where a price worth paying.
2006-09-21 10:46:32 · answer #3 · answered by Bebe 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
When they are fighting for other than the freedom of their country.
Most of the terrorist in Iraq are from neighboring countries attempting to overthrow a democratic government. Terrorist are trying to rid their country of people who disagree with them, while freedom fighters are trying to protect their country from terrorist.
2006-09-21 11:09:18 · answer #4 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm sorry but this is the truth,
When the United States government says so.
Some of those people in Iraq are freedom fighters they do not want to be under the thumb of the US.
2006-09-21 11:24:10 · answer #5 · answered by aliasasim 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Fearless courage is useless in the face of educated bullets.
which side are you on. Is what matters most. George washington was a freedom fighter right....Only in the eyes of Americans...He was probably a terrorist in the eyes of the British...But you say that he didn't kill civillians right. Well to modern day terrorist/freeDUMB fighters they consider all who do not fight or oppose to be the enemy. Its not organized war but rather, Islamo-extremo-jihado-insano....those are there rules i didnt make-em
2006-09-21 11:04:05 · answer #6 · answered by Logical Leroy 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think you know this already. Freedom fighters become insurgents when they are blowing you up in their backyards, they become terrorists when they are blowing you up in your own backyard.
2006-09-21 10:52:37 · answer #7 · answered by eantaelor 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
although it depends almost entirely on whether you support the cause or not, the targetting of civilians should also be taken into account.
of course this would make the dropping of atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki the biggest terrorist acts in human history by far.
2006-09-21 10:56:14 · answer #8 · answered by Boring 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
targeting civilians, using civilians/children/women as shields...doing everything they can to not play by the rules...think 9/11, the Taliban, you'll get the picture.
2006-09-21 10:54:48 · answer #9 · answered by loubean 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When he attacks civilians , especially if the attack goes across a border or hides amongst civilians to attack .
2006-09-21 10:49:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋