One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”? Explain.?

Answer 1

Terrorism cannot be defined absolutely because what is terrorism to one may be a noble cause to another. For instance, to a farmer, the grasshoppers or other insects that "destroy" his farm are a kind of terrorists, which the farmer will have no qualms to exterminate, an action the grasshoppers will term terrorism, since they are merely naturally satisfying their survival instinct.

In relation to humans and races, Harun Yahya seems to have accurately described what terrorism entails in 2 categories. First is the issue of targetting civilians. According to him, even in war situations, any attack on civilians, women and children, especially, is an act of terrorism, no matter who caused the war in the first instance. Second, in a peace situation, any cold blooded attack on military or official targets is terrorism, even if the civilians are spared.

From the descriptions above, one needs be cautious in calling some acts as those of terrorism. The same caution is required to know who a true freedom fighter is. If you are the oppressed, but now adopt a counter offensive measure that targets the civilians of the attackers, both of you are terrorists!

Answer 2

You don't know the meaning of Freedom fighter. They are great people who laid down their own life for the sake of country and even if they have killed someone than it's the person concerned with their fight whereas terrorists are the one who kills innocent people.
And don’t forget Mahatma Gandhi was also a freedom fighter. Can you compare him with bin laden? I think you have understood the difference between a Freedom fighter and a terrorist.
I hope someday you won’t ask a question comparing a husband with a rapist.

Answer 3

you can always expect it from both warring parties----one side would always point an accusing finger to the other side and vice versa ----he is the terrorist !!
--however , there must be a better definition of what a terrorist is, what a freedom fighter is , that is universally acceptable - before one can be branded a freedom fighter or a terrorist..
who knows---both ben ladin and bush will fail as freedom fighthers but pass as terrorists...or the other way around ?

Answer 4

It's simple really. If I attack the government of the country I live in because they are a tyrannical, dictatorial, opperssive regime. Others that feel the same way about that government would consider me a freedom fighter, but the oppressive government would consider me a terrorist. It is all a matter of perspective. And oddly enough, only repressive, oppressive governments consider attacks again them to be terrorism. Other governments, when attacked only consider it an act of agression leading to war. Funny that.

Answer 5

This is a concept George Bush does not seem to grasp at all. The idea is that things depend on your point of view, your perspective. To the Lebanese, Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. As a matter of fact, with respect to the Middle East, the term "terrorist" is only used by the US and israel to apply to anyone who stands up and resists Israeli aggression, occupation and genocide. Anyone who makes any comment or takes any position in opposition to Israel is automatically branded a "terrorist" by the US and Israel. But to most of the people in the Middle East the exact opposite is true. The so-called "terrorist" is a popular hero.

I would go so far as to suggest that it is not a man like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is a terrorist, it is George Bush.

I am an American I was born in the US and have lived here all my life. Most of what George Bush says about the Middle East and terrorism there makes no sense at all to me; he is just harping endlessly the position of his jewish handlers. Ahmadinejad makes a lot more sense to me, and I cannot help but think the US and the world would be a lot better off with a man like Ahmadinejad as President of the US. George Bush is a disaster and ANYTHING would be an improvement.

Answer 6

Let's say that our country's govt. is seized by a Dictator or some other foreign power. Not cool. Let's also say that you hate this new illegal govt. with a passion and decide to fight the powers that be. To the govt. you are now a terrorist, but to your fellow countrymen you are a freedom fighter. See the difference? It's just a matter of perspective.

Answer 7

Let us say that a nation is being ruled by another nation. Let it be India being ruled by Britain. When an Indian revolved against Britain he was a freedom fighter for his people. But he was also a terrorist to Britain as he was a treat to British rule. For an example Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter for the South Africans. But he was kept in jail by British by labelling him a terrorist as he was a danger to British rule in South America.

Answer 8

Freedom fighters are of different category. They generally remain inside the oppressed nation and fight with the oppressors who rule over them.
Terrorist is totally a different category. It is generally a group of hired assassins by some country with apolitical motivation.
Since terrorists are sponsored by some government they get plenty of funds arms and ammunition as free supply. They need not go to any one for collecting funds.
The country sponsoring them gives them the title of freedom fighters.
The standing examples are the Mujaheddin from Pakistan who attack and kill people of Kashmir
Where as Tamil tigers of sri lanka are fighting for their fundamental right as citizens of sri lanka which is denied to them by the srilankan governments . These people have no where to go so they are fighting for survival as decent citizens.

Answer 9

Freedom fighters support democracy.
and the rights of all to live in freedom.
Terrorist commit murderous acts
on the innocent civilians in the name
of religion or their political belief

Answer 10

In World War 2 the Nazi's called the Resistance in France terrorists. The popular view of most of the world is that they were brave and noble patriots,and we know what the Nazi's were don't we?