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

Answer 1

yes right...one mans freedom is good so long as it dosent interfere with another man's freedom...firght for ur cause...but killing innocent civilians and branding the killers as freedon fighters like Pakis do is not freedom fighting but terrorism...fight for a fight cause in the right way....means are as important as the end.Learn from Gandhi;s was of fighting for freedom....

Answer 2

I'm not sure anyone can really explain a statement like that. Here's the simple reason why:

A freedom fighter, or armed insurgent, is someone who attacks military targets or other armed fighters, to further a political cause.

A terrorist attacks unarmed civilian targets to inspire political change through fear.


The difference is that a terrorist kills civilians while a freedom fighter does not. It's not terrorism when someone kills a soldier. It's insurgency.

Bombing a hotel = terorrism
Bombing a military base = insurgency

BIG difference. One target is armed while the other is not. The difference in target is important to note because it signifies the intent of the person doing the bombing.

That's why when a nation bombs a hospital they say it was a military base in diguise... because otherwise it would be considered a terrorist act, or in such a case, a 'war crime'.


It's like saying one man's apple is another man's orange. Explain?

People need to read their dictionaries.

Answer 3

The use of terror to enact political or social change is the basic definition of terrorism. Using this definition, the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War were terrorists to Britain. We view them as patriots or freedom fighters.

The Nazis in World War II had a tactic, especially popular on the Eastern Front, of leveling any town or neighborhood where partisans were active. It's a tactic that the Israeli Army has been officially using against Palestinians for years.

American forces did the same thing in Vietnam, and they're doing it now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever they call it at the Pentagon or in the White House War Room, the real name for such a tactic is terrorism.

Answer 4

e.g. Hezbollah are considered by most in Lebanon to be freedom fighters - they provide social services and are fighting against what is seen as an illegal Isreal. Isreal and the Us on the other hand regard them as terrorists.

Most Americans regard the US military as freedom fighters but they are seen as terrorists by many.

Answer 5

Not so true. Unless one invades the other's rights...

Although, if we think about the American independence wars against the British, then you see beyond today's Middle Eastern conflicts. I guess many back then would have called the British terrorists

Answer 6

During the British rule over India, a number of persons were tried for treason. Once India became independent , they were haled as freedpm fighters and martyrs.

Answer 7

It is very tricky term,

Say there are two countries a & b
a's freedom fighter is b's terrorist and vice versa.

Practically it means one friend is other's enemy.... right?

Answer 8

one mans cause is different from another mans cause.
ex...the US calls the war in iraq a freedom cause against terrorism...the terrorists call the invasion of the US... terrorism

Answer 9

example; Gerry Adams, ..... to most Irish people around the world He's a freedom fighter.....to most English people ...He's a terrorist

Answer 10

a terrorist is a person or persons who commits a crime and and hides .They are always cowardly people.In the long run they achieve nothing.They are also disliked by their own people and dislike their own people;or why would they appoint suicide bombers?Bin Laden and the IRA should take a leaf from Gandhi: he achieved in one life time what the Irish militants failed to do in 800 years.