What is the difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter"?

Question

Because I think its just the "point of view"! What do you think?

Answer 1

you're totally right...

to the pud that thinks that iraqis are fighting to return an oppressive govt...you are an imbecile...

there are two muslim factions in iraq...one is supported by the U.S. govt, and one is not...they hate each other...the U.S. could leave and the two sides would continue to fight for their own freedom because each group wants to oppress the other...by picking sides and remaining in iraq we are oppressing the freedoms of one of the groups...

at the start of the war, we were fighting people who were attacking our military...but now the groups are just fighting to survive and the U.S. military happens to be in the way...

we need to leave so they can learn to live together...on their own...only then should we try and help settle their governmental system with them...

Answer 2

A Terrorist Is A Wretched Sniveling Coward Who Doesn't Have The Guts To Make War On Soldiers And Men.
A Freedom Fighter Is Someone Who Stands Up And Fights Like A Man For A Worthy Cause
That Answer That?

Answer 3

The difference usually is "the winner". Had the British one, the Americans would have been branded terrorists.

However, to go deeper, I believe their is a code of ethics that determines the character of someone, thus the label they are given.

A terrorist is just that, a person who wages war through means of unethical and murderous actions. For example, the US Army had methods of figuring out what direction a mortar strike came from and would respond in kind. So what did the insurgents do? They started firing mortars near mosques, neighborhoods, and schools. The Army would respond and then the proproganda machine would begin churning. So, the Army has changed their tactic a bit on the way they respond.

Look at the recent Korean kidnappings that is only supported by other civilian contractor kidnappings. A method used in hopes of shocking the western world out of the country is filmed beheadings. Terror.

A freedom fighter, to keep his dignity and retain the meritorious title is one who fights with a sense of ethics and "honor". One who (even by unorthodox means) takes the battle to the enemy and attempts to use minimize collateral damage the best he is able.

Answer 4

A terrorist is a person or group of people that use fear as a weapon, they usually recruit from weak minded , persecuted, or religious zealots, they mask their true intentions under the vail of deceit most common is the use of religious ideology. They use terror and fear to force change, increase recruitment, or basically coherece thier target into a feeling of uncertainity.
A freedom fighter can fallinto the realm of terroist, but most are fighting for a cause they feel is just. The best saying to undersatnd what I mean is"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Answer 5

A freedom fighter is (usually) a low tech, civilian soldier traditionally fighting to take back thier country from an invader. The sterotypical model is the French or Dutch Resistance during the second world war. Thier targets are the occuping forces and those who collaborate with them.

A terrorist is one who uses random or psuedo random violence in order to cause terror in the general public with the intention of using that panic to drive political change.

"Freedom Fighter" is oriented to a goal. "Terrorist" is oriernted towards a method.

A Freedom Fighter could use terror tactics and then be labelled a terrorist. But I think you have it right. If you agree with them, they are "Freedom Fighters" and if you do not agree with them - they become "Terrorists".

Edit - It still amazes me the lengths people will go to in order to rationalize terror. As if giving excuses to sucide bombers will somehow make blowing up a holy place and all of the people worshipping there, justifiable and even honourable. It is one thing to do it in order to support your own people. It is quite another, to do so to put your own people down. It is not the fault of Bush, the US Armed Forces, Blair, NATO, or Lassie the Wonder Dog, that a Shia/Sunni drove his explosive packed truck into a Sunni/Shia Mosque or Market. It is only the fault and responsibilty of him, those who gave him the money/explosive, and those who did not stop him.

Answer 6

how about what they are fighting for...to be a freedom fight you need to be fighting for freedom. Its not the methods that sperate them its the motive.

In Iraq they are fighting to re-establish an oppressive gov not for freedom.

Obviously you have never been to Iraq and have gotten all your info from the Television. The INSURGENTS are fighting to either establish dominance over the Shiite or the Sunni’s. So they would be reestablishing the same oppressive Government the Minority Sunnis had before. Christ if you haven’t been there your on the wrong forum because trust me you had NO IDEA what’s going on in Iraq. When did the whole don’t believe everything you see on TV adage go out of style. SO you basically said the same thing I did I just didn’t think everyone needed an explanation I’m sorry I wont ever do that again.

Answer 7

There are several ways of telling the difference between the two.

First you look at their choice of targets. A 'freedom fighter' will try to obey the Geneva Conventions and will limit his attacks to military and government forces.

Next you look at their motives. A freedom fighter will be fighting for some form of idealized political system that he feels will benefit the people of his nation.

The enemy in Iraq fails on both counts. They are typically fighting to restore a dictatorship with their political faction in charge and they have no concern whatsoever about the welfare of the Iraqi people (sounds like the Democratic party). The also selectively target civilians in an attempt to use fear as a method of achieving their goals.

Answer 8

Andreas, the only divide that I can see that might make any sense at all would be to say that a freedom fighter operates in their own country whereas a terrorist exports vilolence outside. This would probably not to the most popular definition as many of those painting others as terrorists would be defined as such themselves.

Answer 9

Short and simple answer is Mac's-A freedom fighter is just that, basically a fighter "soldier" who fights another military for the cause they believe in. A terrorist purposely targets civilians to instill terror in them to force his opinion/beliefs on them, this is usually a minority opinion when he starts killing his own people to force them in line. I might not agree with a "freedom fighters" politics or point of view but he still in my mind a military person and honorable, he does not become a terrorist until he starts purposely bombing and killing civilians. The key word in that is purposely-civilians will always be killed in a war but to fight for your "cause" by targeting unarmed civilians makes you a terrorist and a coward.

Answer 10

I think it is more than just the "point of view."
When President Reagan called the FDN, or the 'Contras' from Nicaragua "freedom fighters", and "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers" - many knew it was not just a point of view - it was the intentional misuse of the word to disguise the work of terrorists against the democratically-elected Sandanista government. What do you think?

Answer 11

One will give his life for women, children, and country,

The other,

will use, women, children, schools and hospitals as a shield. This is not a "point of view"

A freedom fighter will not kill his/her own people to get his way. It is for those people that he will law down his life to protect. A "ideal" that sacrifices the week, the helpless, the Innocent for its own expansion should be stomped out, and put to a painful death.