what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" & a "terrorist", does it just depend on what side u are on

Question

if that is the case ...how can we blame someone for thier point of view?..... because, if we negate them for thier point of view... does that not automatically negate our own point of view? why is our dead more precious then their dead? etc? etc? etc?

how would an outside observer with no invested interest judge the two sides of a conflict - like say a martian who knew nothing of our history and reason...what would this entitty think of our war? could a martian be compelled to take a side?

Answer 1

Freedom fighter is a relativistic term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government or regime that they consider to be oppressive. The terms "freedom" and "rebellion" are often confusing, as often both sides in armed conflict claim to represent the popular cause of "freedom". While external intervening parties, even oppressors, almost always claim to be "liberators", 'freedom fighters' can become oppressors in the eyes of civilians.

Terrorist: one that inspires fear.

In the case of Iraq, most people in the world do not consider the US to be a liberator but an invader and they most likely consider the Iraqi insurgents as freedom fighters. Both parties inspire fear in the opposition and in the civilian population which is indistinguishable of the insurgents.

Both sides, the invader and the insurgents often (not always) are seen by the civilians in the middle as the aggressor.

Relativism: Linguistic relativism is the idea that differences in language are related to differences in cognition of the language users

Answer 2

Too many facets to include here personally but an opinion nonetheless. We are failing to consider an established government as a terrorist thoroughly with the side chats but I'll let that go and sum up the basic question with personal justification of actions.
Negating the voice of another and leaving them no options undoubtedly will lead to armed struggle to seek equality or retribution.
The martian being an independent monitoring commision possibly ? ; )
I believe the martian would have to rely on its own personal experiences within similar circumstances before having empathy for one or the other. I guess we could all watch the insects for a bit and feel this out. Unless of course there is an entomologist in this group and they will have to go look at parasites or something !
Sidebar: Those within the occupied 6 of 9 Ulster counties were locked up on the whim of any police officer not just those who took up arms. Internment, diplock courts, collusion all well documented and available for public consumption these days. As a matter of fact that particular version of abuse turned many to the side of a cause which they may never have done so aggressively. TAL

Answer 3

Here's my take for what it's worth. There is a difference. A Freedom Fighter fights for a country or the formation of a country. Colonists fought to form the USA against Great Britain. The Free French fought against Germany's take over of France. The Viet Cong fought to again unify Viet Nam. None of these people intentionally target civilians as a rule, although there may be a few rogues that do.

Terrorists just cause chaos and havoc. They fight for no country or to form a new country. Their targets have little or no military objective. Civilians are their targets more time than not. Destabilization of existing government so anarchy rules if their objective.

No it doesn't JUST depend which side you are on. Your analogy would rank a Policeman shooting a criminal committing a felony as equal to a criminal shooting a store owner during a robbery. That dog won't hunt.

Answer 4

It pretty much boils down to the survival of the fittest! We are inherently "for" our own way of life and truly believe our religion is "more true". Our country has prospered more than most seems to be proof we are the best and more right than others. It's just an illusion. We are all the same. We fight because it's an instinct. We fight because very few "got" what Christ tried to teach us. The Jews wanted Christ to be a General 2,000 years ago, and failed to recognize him, so put him on the cross with the help of the Romans. Today, we have that same, "I know Christ is a General and will lead us into battle" mentality...It's the gentiles turn to fail! We are using "Old Testament" script and turned our backs on the "New Testament". Funny how in 2,000 years we haven't gone past "kindergarten" in our spirituality, as a nation.

Answer 5

Not much. For example the British referred to the IRA as terrorists whilst Americans revered the IRA as freedom fighters. America armed the IRA and they have British blood on their hands as a result.

If an outside observer were to look at the IRA example he would probably side with using the 'terrorist' title because this option is the most logical for a scientific mind. i.e. if one uses terror to spread a message then one is a terrorist. In general, Britain only imprisoned the Irish people who committed terrorist acts. Northern Irish were free to live normal lives so they had no freedom per se to fight for.

Answer 6

I've made this analogy before, and so far as I can tell, no one has been able to to find an error in the comparion I make, so I am going to use it again. I've had an opportunity to examine this analogy and I am refining it here a bit more, thanks for indulging me.

Around the 1830s or so, the US was (in the eyes of the rest of the world) starting to come apart, over several issues, not the least of which was what was known as "The Slavery Question". There were people on all sides of this issue, and not all of them were US citizens. By this time, America was exporting hundreds of tons of tobacco products to Europe, including France and Germany. Tobacco and corn exports really built America, but during the mid 1800s, the labor costs of harvesting tobacco were starting to rise, due to runaway slaves, the Underground Railroad support system and the lure of Northern "instant amnesty" for any slave whose only crime was running away from the plantation, which resulted in fewer shipments of tobacco leaves going overseas, which drives up prices, etc.

This made the pipe smokers in Europe, Britian, the Far East AND Russia all very nervous, (they weren't smoking filtered cigarettes with an even distribution of nicotine the way modern smokers do), these "Tobacco Users" were taking dried tobacco leaves, grinding them up with their fingers, stuffing them into a pipe and lighting up, in other words, they were getting high on (and addicted to) unfiltered, uncut tobacco. This makes for hardcore European interest in seeing continued, regular tobacco shipment to their countries.

Then, the American Civil War breaks out. Many Southern tobacco plantations are razed and for a very long period, NO shipments of tobacco were leaving American shores, nor were cotton, corn, wheat, etc.

If Bush was head of a European Union back in those days, (yes I know there was no EU then, Im extrapolating) he would have invaded the US to stabilize the region and ensure resumed tobacco exports. What he ACTUALLY would have done was turn about 100 million Americans into "insurgents", each one with at least one weapon under the bed at home. I would consider them "Fighting for Freedom", but Bush would consider them "terrorists" and it would be completely incomprehensible to him why we would just want to learn German and get along with our new Occupying Masters.

Iraqis fighting what they see as an intolerable defamation of their Muslim homeland by "infidel invaders" are "Fighters for Freedom" (at least in their perception).
The 19 Arabian and Jordanian hijackers of the aircraft which were flown into the towers of the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept 11, 2001, were terrorists. They weren't defending anything, they were declaring war on Americans, in a very cowardly way.

Answer 7

A freedom fighter is a man ( or women) who will stand up and fight for what the believe in, and do so with pride. exmp. are the Men and Women who fought for America in the revolutionary war.

A terrorist is a coward, who uses women and children as shields, who goes it to a market where civilians are buying food to feed their families to kill and mangle anyone, not soldiers but people who have no way to defend themselves. Who hides behind schools, hospitals, clinics.

If you do not know the difference, you have some major problems. A freedom fighter has pride in their cause, and will protect other life as much a they can, you basic terrorist is a butcher.

Answer 8

Look at it this way when the colonist fought back against the British were they terrorist or freedom fighters? If you are fighting for your independence then you are obviously a freedom fighter but if you are killing innocent people to force your will on others then you would be a terrorist!

Answer 9

The first Americans in the 18th century were 'insurgents' from the British point of view and considered themselves 'freedom fighters'.

I guess you could apply the same logic to the participants in the Middle East situation.

The radical Muslims want Western influence out of their lives. And the Middle East is very important to the US economy.

Answer 10

Who wins. Simple as that. The key is to be on the winning side, and able to write the history from your point of view.

The lesson learned:

Don't lose!! Whatever happens right or wrong if you don't win you cannot justify your actions or defend your position.

So in Iraq we must not lose, at almost any cost we have to win. Is it harsh, yes very. Welcome to reality.