Freedom Fighter or Terrorist

[A.A.K]

In your opinion, what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Personally, you'd have to judge it case by case.
For example, I think the American government is total evil, trying to put the population in constant fear and needed an 'enemy' to point the figure at. Thus attack and try to 'liberate' the middle east. In this example I wouldn't call them terrorists, rather - freedom fighters.

With the IRA, when the British were chillin' in Ireland, I'd call them all freedom fighters. It's only when the IRA decided to branch out and attack them in their own home would I call them terrorists.

So Escapist, your opinion?
(I'm not a history student by the way, if that's not how the IRA thing went down, don't harang me.)

 

[TephlonPrice]

Freedom Fighter - Fighting for a cause, usually against government oppression or group oppression from a larger power. Often motivated by land disputes, a want to self-govern, or simply live without fear of foreign intervention or invasion.

Terrorist - Fighting to impose an ideology or way of life on a people. Motivated by a want of extreme power over all & willingness to destroy anyone, noncombatants, innocents included, in order to impose their ideology.

The problem with my approach: the lines blur too damn much on who's who in this case & it boils down to doesn't shoot at me first. And often it becomes a battle of who's got better propaganda.

 

[Lionsfan]

Are there really any clear lines? It's always dependent on perspective, always has been, always will. Remember, there were German Soldiers during WWII who thought they were doing the right thing by trying to destroy the Russians, and were merely getting revenge on the British for destroying Germany after WWI. How you look at something, and how Governments look at things plays a huge role

 

[Final First]

A terrorist is one who attempts to push their ideas and goals via terror, hence "terrorist". Though I'm sure this terror would have to be pushed on the general populace to apply.


So, for example, the revolutionaries of the American Revolution were not terrorists because they did not terrorize the American people. However, if they did, then they could be truthfully be labeled terrorists.

Thus, a freedom fighter could also be a terrorist depending on their tactics.

 

[DoPo]

Freedom fighter - one who we sympathise with.

Terrorist - one who we don't sympathise with.

Pretty easy actually.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

Ben Kenobi, Terrorist/Cult Leader, or Freedom Fighter/Sage?

 

[dyre]

They're just different interpretations for the word "insurgent," with "freedom fighter" being what sympathetic locals call them and "terrorist" being what the occupation regime calls them.

 

[ottenni]

The difference is in the intended goals and the means used to achieve them (take note however that a person can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter, the two are different but they can and do overlap).

A terrorist aims to influence a group, such as the population of a city or nation, via psychological means. Specifically through fear. The intended aim for this can vary greatly from self autonomy (or freedom if that's a better way to put it). Said group may wish to impose its moral or political beliefs on society. This i would say creates the greatest difference between the two, some terrorist are not simply fighting for freedom, they are attempting to gain control over another group (An example would be the imposing of sharia law in certain countries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram).

A Freedom Fighter on the other hand is someone who is fighting for self autonomy. A Freedom Fighter does not necessarily need to act violently either, if Gandhi wasn't a freedom fighter than im a pink chicken.

The reason it becomes so difficult to distinguish the two is because the two so commonly overlap, especially in recent years when the majority of notable occupations have consisted of an occupying nation far more capable of conventional warfare than the occupied country, so for any freedom fighting group non-conventional tactics are ideal. And terror based tactics such as suicide bombings, kidnappings/beheading, snipers and IEDs work wonderfully. Even more so when the occupation is unpopular.

It should also be noted that terrorism is not restricted to non-government organisations. See the Firebombings of London/Dresden, the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and Nagasaki/Hiroshima for examples.

Of course its impossible to give a concrete definition of a terrorist. Its a terrible word that mostly used to defame a group just as Freedom Fighters is mostly used to glorify another group. Both are to vague to be used accurately. Which makes me wonder why i spent so much time writing all of that...

 

[Kolby Jack]

The big difference is choice of targets. Freedom fighters attack the government or authority they are trying to remove. Terrorists attack anyone and anything even tangentially associated with their "enemy." Civilians, medical personnel, children; it doesn't matter to them as long as they believe it will aid their cause. Freedom fighters want freedom from their oppressors, terrorists want the annihilation of all their enemies. Freedom fighters are almost always willing to negotiate fair terms. Terrorists rarely negotiate, or keep to the promises made in their negotiations.

Before anyone brings it up, yes, in past wars civilians were often targets from both the "bad guys" and the "good guys." That's why the Geneva Conventions happened. And while some countries, even the USA aren't perfectly following it when it becomes inconvenient, it's most definitely had an effect, and mankind is better for it. Also of note: Terrorists don't give two shits about the Geneva Conventions.

The IRA are terrorists; it doesn't matter that they may once have been freedom fighters. They crossed the line long ago.

 

[twistedmic]

Similar to what Jack the Potato said, the main difference between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' is their targets. Freedom fighters go out of their way to minimize non-combatant casualties, or at least they should do so. A terrorist on the other hand will go out of their way to maximize any possible casualty, either combatant or non-combatant.

 

[the clockmaker]

In your opinion, what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Personally, you'd have to judge it case by case.
For example, I think the American government is total evil, trying to put the population in constant fear and needed an 'enemy' to point the figure at. Thus attack and try to 'liberate' the middle east. In this example I wouldn't call them terrorists, rather - freedom fighters.

With the IRA, when the British were chillin' in Ireland, I'd call them all freedom fighters. It's only when the IRA decided to branch out and attack them in their own home would I call them terrorists.

So Escapist, your opinion?
(I'm not a history student by the way, if that's not how the IRA thing went down, don't harang me.)

What freedoms are insurgents in the MEAO fighting for?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

They are not mutually exclusive things. Both are defined as people who attempt to impose a change on politics. Freedom Fighter does not imply a use of any particular means. A terrorist is simply one who attempts to effect political change through violence and the threat of violence. Strangely, it being a terrorist does not imply you attack a civilian population intentionally. An assassin with a cause is a terrorist just the same as the suicide bomber or the member of a lynch mob.

Not all freedom fighters are terrorists (most aren't). Not all terrorists are freedom fighters. But plenty of freedom fighters are terrorists. The only real question is if you support their cause enough to overlook the violence bits. Many modern nations were founded, directly or indirectly, through acts of terror.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I think what describes a terrorist is someone who commits terrorist activities or terror tactics to achieve there goals, to be honest with you.

So I wouldn't call the US evil for calling them terrorists. Perhaps misinformed at times, and maybe we over-generalize the Taliban and other baddies, but that's generally been the Taliban's main method as of yet.

A freedom fighter probably wouldn't be one who commits terrorist activities. Because targetting civilians doesn't really win you points with the people you're trying to keep free.

And that whole, forsaking freedoms for freedom being wrong quote that one of the founding fathers said, I can't quite remember it.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

It depends on which side of the fight you're on. If a country is feeling oppressed and starts fighting to get freedoms back, they'll see themselves as freedom fighters. The people who they're trying to be freed from, however, will call them terrorists. Even more so if they use violent means, but that doesn't mean that more peaceful protesters won't get the label too because propaganda is an easy tool to use.

 

[Gatx]

A terrorist is one who attempts to push their ideas and goals via terror, hence "terrorist". Though I'm sure this terror would have to be pushed on the general populace to apply.


So, for example, the revolutionaries of the American Revolution were not terrorists because they did not terrorize the American people. However, if they did, then they could be truthfully be labeled terrorists.

Thus, a freedom fighter could also be a terrorist depending on their tactics.

I thought "terrorists" used "terror" against their enemies. So while revolutionaries didn't terrorize the American populace, which would've made no sense, they did tar and feather British government officials and what not so I'm sure the British would've saw them as something like what would be termed "terrorists."

 

[Final First]

A terrorist is one who attempts to push their ideas and goals via terror, hence "terrorist". Though I'm sure this terror would have to be pushed on the general populace to apply.


So, for example, the revolutionaries of the American Revolution were not terrorists because they did not terrorize the American people. However, if they did, then they could be truthfully be labeled terrorists.

Thus, a freedom fighter could also be a terrorist depending on their tactics.

I thought "terrorists" used "terror" against their enemies. So while revolutionaries didn't terrorize the American populace, which would've made no sense, they did tar and feather British government officials and what not so I'm sure the British would've saw them as something like what would be termed "terrorists."

I never considered that. I assume terror to both their enemies and those whom they're trying to "convince" to their side via terror.

Though I'm still not completely convinced that the revolutionaries in the American Revolution were terrorists. Don't get me wrong, it's not because I'm American, it's because they didn't have terrorist intentions. Sure, some did in fact tar and feather British officers and officials, but that was an attempt at punishment during war. Although some may have intended for those events to terrorize the British, I doubt many did.

EDIT: Fixed grammatical mistakes.

 

[spartan231490]

Terrorism is a techniche; a method, not an identity. The Allied forces won WWII using terrorism, and the US revolutionaries were freedom fighters that never practiced terrorism. The modern governments have twisted the meaning so they can paint terrorism as some great evil whilst ignoring the fact that it was the primarily accepted way to win a war up through WWII, and that every one of them employed terrorism.

 

[JaceArveduin]

I'd have to say it all depends on who wins at the end. The winners right the history books, after all.