What is the difference between Terrorists and Freedom Fighters?

Question

Why are the Afghans who shot down Russian (who were invited by the Afghan government) helicopters with American made Stinger missiles called Freedom Fighters, whereas the Afghans who kill INVADING Americans with car bombs always terrorists? It seems the American government & news has made the link that: Anti-American=Terrorist=Al-Quaida. Isn't it possible that patriotic Afghans or Iraqis (some who may be pro-American) just want the invading US to go away? That since any general uprising would be futile (and most likely unpopular) against the mighty US armed forces, car bombs and IEDs become the weapon of choice.
I reckon one side can put any label on an advisary. I doubt the British and Loyalists called George Washington and his militia Freedom Fighters.

Answer 1

Ever heard the concept of "history is written by the victor". One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Answer 2

Is American trying to force dictatorship onto Afghans? Is American rounding up Afghan for genocide? There are innocent casualties, but we don't go in with intention of killing innocent people for revenge like what terrorists do. We're not there to oppress people, but to liberate people from oppressive Taliban regime. You think fighting against the US makes you freedom fighter?

Sure, the if the US leave Taliban be and allow them to kill women and children for being victims of rape and abuse, they'll complain the US isn't doing enough. And if the US take military action in foreign country the US is automatically a evil force?

Difference is terrorists specifically target innocent people for revenge and pure anger while the US target those who openly declare war on the US, Al Queda and others. And freedom fighters fight against brutal/dictatorship like regimes.

You can't make that kind of vast generalization with the word, 'freedom fighter.' If you're right. I can be a freedom fighter for speeding, tax evasion, shop lifting, trepassing...etc.

Politicians do generalize terrorism/Al Queda threat. And you're idea is no better than theirs.

This is like saying iwhen I break law by speeding you tell me I'm just as bad as serial murderer because we both broke laws.

Answer 3

The determination of which side of the line the combatants fall on (terrorist/freedom fighter) is made by the people who write history.

Check out the history books of different nations and you would be surprised the different perspective of the battles. You might find major battles that were won by one side are only minor skirmishes that had no effect on the way the war ended on the other side.

Do a tour of the White House and ask about the first one, it was burned down in the war of 1812. However, this is not mentioned during the tour as it is not that important an event, after all capital cities get burned down all the time.

After all it is His Story.

Answer 4

Terrorism is a tactic of attacking defenseless civilians instead of military targets. The purpose of these attacks is to create Terror, rather than to gain a military advantage.
Attacking US soldiers would not be terrorism; attacking a market or restaurant or mosque or commuter train would be terrorism.
Who is a "freedom fighter" might depend on your point of view. Some people may even believe that freedom can be gained by terrorism. However, the difference between military combat and terrorism is clear.

Answer 5

The difference is everybody but terrorists do not kill off civilians for the heck of it. Those battling the US army could be considered freedom fighters, but a guy blowing himself in a shopping mall with no military value, and no real purpose other than to kill people is a terrorist.

In the Kasmir, a person fighting Indian troops could be considered a freedom fighter, one blowing up a train full of both Hindu and Moslem commuters is a terrorist.

I think that is a pretty easy difference to see.

Answer 6

Yes, yes, yes and yes. The short answer: the difference is almost always subjective. Even the French resistance in WWII did some brutal things, like blow up German troops together with French children who were begging the Germans for candy. If there is a difference, it can definitely be said that sometimes freedom fighters act like terrorists and sometimes terrorists act like freedom fighters.

Answer 7

It is all just labels, if you kill, you kill. It doesn't matter what your reasons are, what your method is or who your victims are, a killer is a killer, and God does not condone killing. As to those of you who state that terrorists strike at civilians and annihilate the innocent, I suggest you look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then rewrite your list of terrorists. The end does not justify the means and anyone who kills, causes terror and is therefore a terrorist.

Answer 8

Terrorists attack easy innocent targets to temporarily gain power for a group of rouge bandits. They usually have to stay in a hidden form for fear of having to personally answer for their cowardly acts.
Freedom fighters achieve no power when attacking the enemy targets that would harm the innocent. The governments they serve usually only gain thanks and gratitude, but stand for all to see, just as the Declaration of Independence was handled. War was not wanted but it came. The U.S. stands today for all to see.

Answer 9

Freedom fighters don't target the Innocent. The innocent are causality's of war. Cowardists target everyone and anyone. They are 100% cowards.

Answer 10

freedom fighters is a legitimate fighting force recognized by the governing party.... Hezbollah for instance are freedom fighters not terrorist.... terrorist have a different agenda