Can a "freedom fighter" also be a terrorist? If yes, please given an example??

Answer 1

No not in my view and especially when you bring up terrorist groups like the IRA, when you specifically target civilians that are no where near military installments then you are a terrorist. If the civilian population is hit because of the closeness of the opposing force (setting up in residential housing areas, schools,or churches then you can be called a freedom fighter.

Answer 2

This depends, I suppose, on the individual's opinion when reacting to the actions of monsters justifying their cause through bloodshed of the innocent. The word "terrorist" is far too overused by politicians in the US when opposing ideals get in the way of the GOP propaganda machine. You could be labeled a terrorist for asking this question. Realistically though, I am of the opinion that anyone (politician, jihadist, Michigan militia members, etc) who use the deaths of innocent civilians to further their cause (money, oil revenues, islamic state, power and greed), or to force the recognition of their perverse and insane views, should be considered a threat to all things decent and human and should thus be labeled a terrorist.
Perhaps the aboved mentioned should understand that the innocent hearts and minds they try to win would just assume be left out of their sick game.

Answer 3

Two Afghanis goes into a market in Afghanistan and one blows himself up and kills 20 people (he's a terrorist by US standards and a freedom fighter by Al queda standards). The second one gets away and runs down the street an goes into a housng compound (he's a coward by Al queda standards and a terrorist by US standards) . An British Air Force Major hops into his Harrier and straps on (2) 500lb bombs and heads for the compound. The bombs are released and 20 Afghanis living in the compound are killed (he's a liberator/freedom fighter by US standards and a terrorist by Afghani standards).

When you attack 'enemies' of the US you are a freedom fighter. When you attack the US you are a terrorist.

Thomas Paine wrote his famous quote: "These are the times that try men's souls" to refer to war in which American revolutionaries often in absolute poverty fought without uniforms, hiding behind trees and rocks, much to the disgust of the British Redcoats, who had bright red uniforms and fought out in the open, waiting for the enemy to come to fight with honor. The American revolutionaries learned their style of fighting from the indigenous people. The revolutionaries did not share the British idea of honorable fighting, because the American revolutionaries believed what they were doing was acceptable to save their nation.

People who wrap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up to kill a few enemies are "terrorists" by definition. Those who ride in F-16s, Apache helicopters, Humvees, APCs, tanks and other very expensive weapons systems who 'blow up civilians' with the objective of killing Palestinians/Iraqis/Afghanis/Sommali 'terrorists' are not terrorists or cowards? Is this because those so equipped control definitions? Or, if not definitions, per se, then control the media through which reports are broadcast?

Answer 4

The difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" largely depends on ones point of view.

Regardless of how one labels such people, in general.

Fighting for ones rights and/or freedom is usually a noble endeavor.

Blowing up innocent bystanders for the express purpose of drawing media attention to ones cause (so that it terrorizes a large audience) is simply immoral.

Answer 5

Osama Bin Laden fought to keep Afghanistan free from the Soviets in the '80's using weapons given to him by Reagan and George Bush I. And then later planned attacks against the United States including 9/11.

Answer 6

Certainly. Every country ever overrun by an occupying army has had to deal with organized and/or unorganized resistance groups. (Germany and Japan post WW2 being exceptional cases.) Alexander and later the Brits, Russians and now the Americans in Afghanistan are good examples. The Romans in Britain, Gaul and Israel dealt with revolts against their occupations as did the Spanish against France, the Russians against the Germans, the French and other countries against Nazi occupation. Russian occupation of Chechnya still goes on and even China has problems with various muslim areas of that country. My advice? Stay off other people's turf and don't let them on yours!

Answer 7

Freedom Fighters are fighting for freedom.

Terrorists are cowards who want to return to a repressive way of life.

Answer 8

Freedom fighters, to me, are people who are oppressed and they fight their oppressors.

The people working in the offices of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 were not oppressors of the Muslims in the Mid East.

Having said all that, I have come to the conclusion that terrorists are not freedom fighters, but good ol' fashioned cowards like their wimpy leader OBL.

Answer 9

The answer to your question is yes. However it depend son your prospective. As an example, our government views those in Iraq who kill our troops as terrorists or insurgents, and maybe they are. However, one can argue that they are trying to liberate their country from an illegal occupation by another nation.

The American revolution is another example. Like the war in Iraq, our founding fathers used violence and a foreign army(France) to rid the colonies of a tyrannical oppressive government (England). So as I stated earlier it's all a matter of prospective.

Answer 10

No, a freedom fighter Fights for freedom, and usually lives to tell the tell. A terrorist, plots murder and usually dies whilst carrying it out, gaining nothing but death, and no freedom ?