what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Question

where do you draw the line?

Answer 1

Judas Iscariot

Iscariot was used as a term... "of the Dagger", and this term was given to fighters after they had killed a certain number of Roman soldiers by assassination.

Judas of the Dagger
Jewish Freedom Fighter
Terrorist of Rome

Answer 2

Well I draw the line at thier actions. A freedom fighter does not kill women & children. A terrorist kills everyone who does not believe in their view. Your either with them or your dead period. A freedom fighter fights those who fight them but, doesn't attack the unarmed. They may take prisoners to get information, a terrorist may also take prisoners but, to abuse and show their fellow terrorist how much power they have. The do this in order to show they have control and keep the others in line Needless to say there are a lot more terrorist than freedom fighters. However, a freedom fighter fights to free the people allowing them to choose a terrorist fights to control the country and oppress the people or chooses the way of live for them.

Answer 3

A terrorist is someone who targets innocent civilians to acheive political aims. In that context, national govts can engage in terrorism too e.g. oppressing national minorities, political opponents etc. I don't believe that national govts should be presumed to be acting legitimately if they target innocent civilians whereas non-govt bodies doing so constitutes terrorism. We have to be consistent and to oppose the practice and apply the term "terrorist" to all who abuse human rights in this way. Otherwise we are acquiescing in terrorism just by different people. Furthermore I would contend that the morality of actions carried out in the name of a cause should not influence our opinions on whether the cause itself is right. For example, Hamas etc. may have killed Israeli civilians via suicide bombings. However that of itself does not make a Palestinian state wrong - arguably it reinforces the view that such a state is needed to address the grievances that act as recruiting sergeants for such organisations anyway. On what constitutes a freedom fighter I would argue that if a militant group is fighting to overthrow an oppressive regime but is not targeting civilians, then they constitute freedom-fighters. This definition however recognises the fact that a minority within the latters ranks may act in a manner that is against the laws of war. But if a majority do not and if the order didn't come from the leadership of the movement to target civilians, then I would still consider the movement broadly speaking to constitute freedom-fighters. That is my opinion.

Answer 4

It depends on where the media draw the line. In the 50's, when the Hungarian people revolted against the Russian occupation of their country, they were called "freedom fighters" by the media. At the same time, the people of Northern Ireland were fighting the British occupiers, they were labled "terrorists". It's really a question of whose side you're on, and what the media labels them.

Answer 5

straightforward. while they're scuffling with for the liberty of their human beings which many concept the Afghans doing in Afghanistan yet having gained the country, they grew to become the country right into a genocidal penal complex camp plenty worse the Russian puppet regime ever became. They went from freedom combat to terrorist. additionally, freedom opponents combat they do no longer kill females and youngsters and desire to win by horror. the yank revolution became no longer approximately killing the families of human beings, they have been approximately pushing the British out of the colonies. Clearlyfreedom opponents can inflict harm on present day armies yet terrorists decide on rather to explode college buses and females in the marketplace to purchase food for his or her fafamilies you do no longer see that and have come to settle for that killing of noncombatants is okay and unquestionably you could desire to make it look noble and courageous. Seven 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous babies on college buses at the instant are not lots of a risk on your "terrorist/freedom fighter" and adult males on their thank you to their jobs at the instant are not armed so they're straightforward objectives. Thats the edition. once you assert eastern u . s . you propose Boston and the Irish community, thats no longer united statesa. or human beings those are people who're only hiding out someplace else cuz its secure. no person ever reported as the Viet Cong terrorists, they werefightingg of their usa against a distant places military. Blowing up place of work homes or motels and concentrated on unarmed people who have not have been given any specific dedication to something is only cowardly habit.

Answer 6

The difference between terroists and freedom fighters is the targets they pick. Freedom fighters attack government and military targets. Terrorists attack civilians. If you shoot at a man in an army uniform you're a freedom fighter. If you're blowing up grocery stores and bus stops you are a terrorist.

Answer 7

The difference is barley noticeable yet distinct in finite ways. neither of which respect the line because of the force behind them, they both get pushed over the line, they know not where the brake is, nor do they understand the road they travel on. yet there is a line for all, though it is unseen, there is a stop sign too. and pray they see them both. There is a line and there is a fall, there is a cliff should they choose to rise above and learn from those in history, until that day comes swiftly they will remain in the free fall state .this is my understanding.

Answer 8

It all depends on how far the person goes. A freedom fighter will only resort to pickiting, protests, and petitions.

terrorists take things to a whole new and unreasonable level.

Answer 9

It depends what side of the political fence you are on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Answer 10

It depends on who you support, or rather, who you think is right in their beliefs. If the term terrorist had been coined sometime before 1776, I'm quite sure England would have labeled us terrorists when we were fighting for independence. So there you go.