2007-10-25 15:16:37 · 22 answers · asked by Dylan 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. A freedom fighter fights against an occupying military. Terrorists strike innocent civilians to instill 'terror' on an opposing populace. The Irish Republican Army for many years were freedom fighters and had many supporters in the US. Where they went wrong, and lost most of their support, is when they started bombing civilian targets.
How are the terrorists that attacked that middle school in Russia, slaughtering hundreds of innocent children, anyones 'freedom fighters'.
2007-10-25 15:23:32 · answer #1 · answered by Downriver Dave 5 · 5⤊ 6⤋
How about I in simple terms discuss that each and every freedom fighter, is continually considered a terrorist by the human beings they're battling. Now if you're speaking of "authentic terrorists" that terrorize only for the sake of causing worry, and imbalance in society, no they would not be freedom combatants, although the terrorist label is being painted with an extremely large brush at present.
2016-10-23 00:16:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about I just point out that every freedom fighter, is always considered a terrorist by the people they are fighting.
Now if you are speaking of "real terrorists" that terrorize just for the sake of causing fear, and imbalance in society, no they would not be freedom fighters, BUT the terrorist label is being painted with an exceptionally large brush these days.
2007-10-25 16:02:25 · answer #3 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A Freedom fighter is thought of, in the text of helping the oppressed to obtain a life of freedom---BUT many Freedom fighters have in fact been the world's worst terrorists! Normally a terrorist is trained to control thru fear. His intentions might have started in good faith but power corrupts! Stalin declared he was for the people but his game plan was to control with fear. Castro was a freedom fighter, but he chose to use the power of the communists to control with fear. George Washington was a freedom fighter and he won freedom for his country that has lasted for 100's of years. Most don't have his principals!! USMC 60-68
2007-10-26 09:31:41 · answer #4 · answered by grizzlytrack 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree.
It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it is a fact.
Billions of people would agree that the guy Shrub doesn't think about much is a terrorist. But millions of people think he is fighting for their freedom from what they percieve as oppression.
It does not matter who is right or wrong.
Vlad the Impaler slaughtered scores of innocent people to make an impression on an invading force. Those impaled certainly were terrorized. Those spared of death at the hands of the invaders probably had a different view.
Most westerners feel that Stalin terrorized his own people for decades. But millions of Russians still believe he was the savior of Russia.
Your statement is simply a fact.
One of the things that drives me crazy though is when people rationalize abhorrent behavior by saying that the offender believes he or she is doing the right thing.
Stalin thought he was doing the right thing. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.
You think you are doing the right thing. That does not mean you are.
Each person has to decide what they believe to be correct. And at some point you have to be willing to defend it from someone who believes they are correct.
2007-10-25 16:00:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, people will always call things whatever they want to call them. As a matter of logic, however, this is nonsense. Freedom-fighting refers to the ultimate objective, while terrorism characterizes the methods, so they are not mutually exclusive. One can be a freedom-fighter AND a terrorist.
2007-10-25 15:48:53 · answer #6 · answered by Rеdisca 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
agree... and vice versa...
it's simple here's a hypothetical situation, so someone is living in an occupied state, this person has suffered long under this occupation so s/he decides to fight against it. S/he has almost no money and so cannot form a military and buy tanks and planes so s/he starts blowing up government buildings controlled by the occupieing nation. to the people of the occupied nation this person would be a hero, a soldier and a freedom fighter, to the people of the occupieing nation this person would be a terrorist.
2007-10-25 15:27:37 · answer #7 · answered by vegan_geek 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not all..but then again I wouldn't use the word terrorist. If a terrorist's main goal is to instill fear in people, I would say the US government is the biggest terrorist in the world. Especially Bush, he's always talking about "the terrorists want to kill you and your family" every chance he gets, which is complete bullsh!t. The media too though. Notice how everyone today is so irrationally terrified of this invisible terrorist lurking everywhere, when there really is not a very big threat. You have a bigger chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by "terrorists", unless of course you're invading a country that doesn't want you there....and then the whole place is filled with "terrorists".
2007-10-25 15:32:36 · answer #8 · answered by BC's bud 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Disagree, no freedom fighter I know intentionally targets women and children.
2007-10-25 15:55:41 · answer #9 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
disagree. That is such a no-backbone idea to put forth. I suppose a person trying to break-out of prison could be considered a "freedom fighter" by some . . .but at some point you have to draw a line between right and wrong. We are right . . .they are terrorists.
2007-10-25 15:32:04 · answer #10 · answered by KRR 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋