Do we have cause to become one?
2007-01-23 04:52:29 · 13 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The guys well call "terrorist". In their minds they are "freedom fighters." What freedoms they are fighting for we may never know.
During World War 2 we called the French and Russian guerillas "partisans" or "Freedom fighters." The Germans called them "bandits" or "terrorists."
Who is right is your call.
2007-01-23 04:57:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Freedom Fighter is what we all should strive to become. Isn't the cause of freedom and liberty for all, worth fighting for? There is alot of injustices still out there that need fighters and you don't need to go war to do it. Simply get involved, make a stand!
Be the change you wish to see in the world!
2007-01-23 05:04:54 · answer #2 · answered by joymlcat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some examples.... Boudica, celtic queen who fought the romans and lost. Tamil Tigers are generally considered freedom fighters even though they partake in terrorist activities. They are victims of genocide at this very moment in indonesia so it's overlooked that they attack civilian targets. Boudica as well killed civilians, whole cities, but perhaps is still viewed in a good light because it's so old and she is a historical figure to the English. The french resistance. Many south americans are considered terrorists not freedom fighters, (i will say because... they are socialists.)
The general difference is that terrorists attack civilians with the intent to terrorize or control with fear. Freedom fighters are on the side of the people and want to free them. This can be sticky because some civilians can be seen as in colaboration with the evil govt. So bombing a police station or a recruitment line for a police station can be presented as an attack on civilians.
Further complicating it, in WWII the allies (that's us) declared total war on germany, and germany at this time was all of europe. Now listen to what total warfare is. Total war is different from regular war in that it is war against the people and the entire nation. This allows destruction of factories, not just tank factories but food production, rubber, metal, anything and everything is to be destroyed. This includes carpet bombing which randomly drops explosives into cities destroying who knows what as well as firestorming which is extremely devious. Firestorming is generally to set fire to a city by listen to how it's done. You start fires, with incendiary bombs, on the edge of the city all around it in a circle. This has 2 very nasty consequences, 1 the fire heat creates a vortex whirlwind that pulls the fire into the center quickly, 2 it cuts off any avenue of escape for all in the city civilian or not. Thus leaving the city completely destroyed by the next morning. I just mention this, were americans terrorists in WWII? They intentionally killed civilians. Did thier desperate times against a powerful enemy justify terrorism?
Do you have a cause? well as much as you think you did, the govt has the right to imprison or kill any who stand against it. So even if you were justified it doesn't make a difference, you can't fight them. If you do have a cause then our system theoretically has legitimate peaceful means by which you can make your case and lobby for change.
2007-01-23 05:22:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom Fighter is like Gorge Washington who ended the English occupation of America.
2007-01-23 05:13:12 · answer #4 · answered by DAVAY 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Quoted from wikipedia: Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established organization that is thought to be oppressive
Yes.
2007-01-23 05:01:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A freedom fighter is a terrorist you agree with.
Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter when we funded and armed him to fight the USSR. Now he's a terrorist because he's fighting us.
To the British, George Washington was a traitor and terrorist. To us, he's a freedom fighter and hero.
2007-01-23 04:57:27 · answer #6 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The side that wins had the Freedom Fighters. The other side becomes the terrorists. You can't tell who's who for sure until the war ends.
It's all rather subjective, no?
2007-01-23 04:58:30 · answer #7 · answered by normanbormann 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A freedom fighter is a Liberal Democrats nice name for a terrorist. Why would we want to become "freedom fighters"?
2007-01-23 04:56:19 · answer #8 · answered by mojojo66 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A freedom fighter is a true patroit. A patroit is a scarce man, brave hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, as then it costs nothing to be a patroit.
2007-01-23 04:58:34 · answer #9 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
a Freedom Fighter is what the liberal media calls a terrorist
2007-01-23 04:55:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋