What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

The IRA factions looked for a United Ireland through their separate factions and to rid British Monarchy rule in the North. They were branded as terrorists.

But then again, didn't the American revolutionists wage war in 1775 to do the same? Yet today the U.S. are branded as the 'good' guys. Trying to rid terrorism.

I don't expect this to be a talk on the revolutionary war or the 'troubles'. This is merely an example.

But what REALLY is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Freedom fighter > Terrorist

/thread.

Freedom fighter > Terrorist

thread.

CRS98

I never asked which one you thought was better though. :|

A Freedom Fighter is actually more like a militia IMO,a small or large group of people fighting to save something.A terrorist will go and do something and if he/or she does that something successfully,it is done to cause terror in the hearts of the surrounding civilians.teh_destroyer

So the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are freedom fighters then?

A freedom fighter gathers up arms to fight against a superior military and government establishment. Whereas a Terrorist kills Civilians en masse to encite terror to gain control.

So, there is a huge difference.

Perspective.Rekunta

Thats the one.

If you are under suppression for example, anyone that fights for you is a Freedom Fighter. however if you are the ones they are fighting against they are classed as Terrorists.

A freedom fighter gathers up arms to fight against a superior military and government establishment. Whereas a Terrorist kills Civilians en masse to encite terror to gain control.

So, there is a huge difference.

Tolwan

The IRA, ETA andAl-Qaeda do both.

Also, the Palestinian Military does both.

The American Revolutionary Army did both.

The American army in Iraq and Vietnam did both.

[QUOTE="Tolwan"]

A freedom fighter gathers up arms to fight against a superior military and government establishment. Whereas a Terrorist kills Civilians en masse to encite terror to gain control.

So, there is a huge difference.

Total-KO

The IRA, ETA andAl-Qaeda do both.

Also, the Palestinian Military does both.

The American Revolutionary Army did both.

The American army in Iraq and Vietnam did both.

A Freedom Fighter doesnt perform terrorism. Once you start deliberately killing civilians to gain power, you are labeled a terrorist. That is what makes you a terrorist. Like, i may be a soldier, but once i start killing civilians deliberately en masse in order to gain control through fear, i then become a Terrorist.

They may still fight against the establishment, but since they use the deaths of civilian populations to do it, they are terrorists.

Also, my college history may be failing me through the summer, but i am pretty sure there were no acts of deliberate killing of civilians by americans in both the Revolutionary war and Vietnam. The stuff you heard during vietnam was by and large Propoganda by the hippie movement at the time.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]Perspective.Apollo5000

Thats the one.

If you are under suppression for example, anyone that fights for you is a Freedom Fighter. however if you are the ones they are fighting against they are classed as Terrorists.

Probably the textbook answer right there.

So given that, should we REALLY judge fundamentalist muslims, the Nationalist Irish or Palestinians because they don't see the groups and factions we do?

[QUOTE="Total-KO"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]

A freedom fighter gathers up arms to fight against a superior military and government establishment. Whereas a Terrorist kills Civilians en masse to encite terror to gain control.

So, there is a huge difference.

Tolwan

The IRA, ETA andAl-Qaeda do both.

Also, the Palestinian Military does both.

The American Revolutionary Army did both.

The American army in Iraq and Vietnam did both.

A Freedom Fighter doesnt perform terrorism. Once you start deliberately killing civilians to gain power, you are labeled a terrorist. That is what makes you a terrorist. Like, i may be a soldier, but once i start killing civilians deliberately en masse in order to gain control through fear, i then become a Terrorist.

They may still fight against the establishment, but since they use the deaths of civilian populations to do it, they are terrorists.

Also, my college history may be failing me through the summer, but i am pretty sure there were no acts of deliberate killing of civilians by americans in both the Revolutionary war and Vietnam. The stuff you heard during vietnam was by and large Propoganda by the hippie movement at the time.

So you'd be willing to admit thatsome soldiers in the British and U.S. army are terrorists?

Are you serious about the Vietnam war? There were NO deliberate civilian killings in the Vietnam war? What do the American schools teach?

There was a massive deliberate civilian killing in De Nang I think, (I lost my GCSE history book so I can't confirm the place.)

Also, I believe that there were a lot of African American/ Slave killings by both sides in the American Revolutionary War

they both want best for their country, but i guess who ever is on our side is the "freedom fighter"

[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]

A freedom fighter gathers up arms to fight against a superior military and government establishment. Whereas a Terrorist kills Civilians en masse to encite terror to gain control.

So, there is a huge difference.

Total-KO

The IRA, ETA andAl-Qaeda do both.

Also, the Palestinian Military does both.

The American Revolutionary Army did both.

The American army in Iraq and Vietnam did both.

A Freedom Fighter doesnt perform terrorism. Once you start deliberately killing civilians to gain power, you are labeled a terrorist. That is what makes you a terrorist. Like, i may be a soldier, but once i start killing civilians deliberately en masse in order to gain control through fear, i then become a Terrorist.

They may still fight against the establishment, but since they use the deaths of civilian populations to do it, they are terrorists.

Also, my college history may be failing me through the summer, but i am pretty sure there were no acts of deliberate killing of civilians by americans in both the Revolutionary war and Vietnam. The stuff you heard during vietnam was by and large Propoganda by the hippie movement at the time.

So you'd be willing to admit thatsome soldiers in the British and U.S. army are terrorists?

Are you serious about the Vietnam war? There were NO deliberate civilian killings in the Vietnam war? What do the American schools teach?

There was a massive deliberate civilian killing in De Nang I think, (I lost my GCSE history book so I can't confirm the place.)

Also, I believe that there were a lot of African American/ Slave killings by both sides in the American Revolutionary War

If/when US soldiers did kill civilians (Which if it ever happened, was because they were harboring a cache of weapons), it wasnt to encite fear and gain control through power, but simply to remove a potential threat. Terrorists, kill civilians, to incite Terror. Thus the name "Terrorists".

[QUOTE="Total-KO"]

So you'd be willing to admit thatsome soldiers in the British and U.S. army are terrorists?

Are you serious about the Vietnam war? There were NO deliberate civilian killings in the Vietnam war? What do the American schools teach?

There was a massive deliberate civilian killing in De Nang I think, (I lost my GCSE history book so I can't confirm the place.)

Also, I believe that there were a lot of African American/ Slave killings by both sides in the American Revolutionary War

Tolwan

If/when US soldiers did kill civilians (Which if it ever happened, was because they were harboring a cache of weapons), it wasnt to encite fear and gain control through power, but simply to remove a potential threat. Terrorists, kill civilians, to incite Terror. Thus the name "Terrorists".

Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"]

So you'd be willing to admit thatsome soldiers in the British and U.S. army are terrorists?

Are you serious about the Vietnam war? There were NO deliberate civilian killings in the Vietnam war? What do the American schools teach?

There was a massive deliberate civilian killing in De Nang I think, (I lost my GCSE history book so I can't confirm the place.)

Also, I believe that there were a lot of African American/ Slave killings by both sides in the American Revolutionary War

Total-KO

If/when US soldiers did kill civilians (Which if it ever happened, was because they were harboring a cache of weapons), it wasnt to encite fear and gain control through power, but simply to remove a potential threat. Terrorists, kill civilians, to incite Terror. Thus the name "Terrorists".

Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

If a soldier goes crazy and shoots a couple civilians, he's a psycopath, murderer, Genocidal Maniac, or whatever you prefer. A terrorist is someone who Deliberately kills a large amount of civilians for the purpose of Inciting fear. When a person blows up an abortion clinic, he's a terrorist. We have several incidences of white terrorism in America's history, though on a much smaller scale.

The difference with 9/11 was that it was terrorism organized and planned by a large organization dedicated to terrorism. That is why we decided to go to war in afghanistan. It is a war on largeorganized groups dedicated to terrorism.

[QUOTE="Total-KO"]Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

Tolwan

If a soldier goes crazy and shoots a couple civilians, he's a psycopath, murderer, Genocidal Maniac, or whatever you prefer. A terrorist is someone who Deliberately kills a large amount of civilians for the purpose of Inciting fear. When a person blows up an abortion clinic, he's a terrorist. We have several incidences of white terrorism in America's history, though on a much smaller scale.

The difference with 9/11 was that it was terrorism organized and planned by a large organization dedicated to terrorism. That is why we decided to go to war in afghanistan. It is a war on largeorganized groups dedicated to terrorism.

OK, but how is that not also a freedom fighter? Is it not perception?

[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"]Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

Total-KO

If a soldier goes crazy and shoots a couple civilians, he's a psycopath, murderer, Genocidal Maniac, or whatever you prefer. A terrorist is someone who Deliberately kills a large amount of civilians for the purpose of Inciting fear. When a person blows up an abortion clinic, he's a terrorist. We have several incidences of white terrorism in America's history, though on a much smaller scale.

The difference with 9/11 was that it was terrorism organized and planned by a large organization dedicated to terrorism. That is why we decided to go to war in afghanistan. It is a war on largeorganized groups dedicated to terrorism.

OK, but how is that not also a freedom fighter? Is it not perception?

A Freedom Fighter is not someone who uses Terrorism as their primary tactic. Like i said, a huge difference. Freedom Fighters use direct assaults, guerilla warfare, etc. etc. Essentially military strategy, sneak attacks on military and government facilities, stuff like that. Wheras the primary tactic of a terrorist is to hit major civilian centers to kill as many civilians as possible. If al Queda stopped doing that entirely and only attacked U.S. soldiers, they would no longer be terrorists, instead they would merely be enemy combatants and COULD be seen as Freedom Fighters depending on who's side you're on. But right now, they are terrorists.

[QUOTE="Total-KO"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"]Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

Tolwan

If a soldier goes crazy and shoots a couple civilians, he's a psycopath, murderer, Genocidal Maniac, or whatever you prefer. A terrorist is someone who Deliberately kills a large amount of civilians for the purpose of Inciting fear. When a person blows up an abortion clinic, he's a terrorist. We have several incidences of white terrorism in America's history, though on a much smaller scale.

The difference with 9/11 was that it was terrorism organized and planned by a large organization dedicated to terrorism. That is why we decided to go to war in afghanistan. It is a war on largeorganized groups dedicated to terrorism.

OK, but how is that not also a freedom fighter? Is it not perception?

A Freedom Fighter is not someone who uses Terrorism as their primary tactic. Like i said, a huge difference. Freedom Fighters use direct assaults, guerilla warfare, etc. etc. Essentially military strategy, sneak attacks on military and government facilities, stuff like that. Wheras the primary tactic of a terrorist is to hit major civilian centers to kill as many civilians as possible. If al Queda stopped doing that entirely and only attacked U.S. soldiers, they would no longer be terrorists, instead they would merely be enemy combatants and COULD be seen as Freedom Fighters depending on who's side you're on. But right now, they are terrorists.

[QUOTE="Total-KO"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"]Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

Tolwan

If a soldier goes crazy and shoots a couple civilians, he's a psycopath, murderer, Genocidal Maniac, or whatever you prefer. A terrorist is someone who Deliberately kills a large amount of civilians for the purpose of Inciting fear. When a person blows up an abortion clinic, he's a terrorist. We have several incidences of white terrorism in America's history, though on a much smaller scale.

The difference with 9/11 was that it was terrorism organized and planned by a large organization dedicated to terrorism. That is why we decided to go to war in afghanistan. It is a war on largeorganized groups dedicated to terrorism.

OK, but how is that not also a freedom fighter? Is it not perception?

A Freedom Fighter is not someone who uses Terrorism as their primary tactic. Like i said, a huge difference. Freedom Fighters use direct assaults, guerilla warfare, etc. etc. Essentially military strategy, sneak attacks on military and government facilities, stuff like that. Wheras the primary tactic of a terrorist is to hit major civilian centers to kill as many civilians as possible. If al Queda stopped doing that entirely and only attacked U.S. soldiers, they would no longer be terrorists, instead they would merely be enemy combatants and COULD be seen as Freedom Fighters depending on who's side you're on. But right now, they are terrorists.

I am curious by that definition how the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are viewed? Is that being a "Terrorist" or a "Freedom Fighter"?

[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="Total-KO"]Well, there are some racist expletive deleted soldiers who obviously have a black heart and would kill and mame for the sake of sheer stress of being at war. They must surely be terrorists. Aren't they enciting terror into the communities in Iraq which have been affected by their racist, unlawful killing?

Rekunta

If a soldier goes crazy and shoots a couple civilians, he's a psycopath, murderer, Genocidal Maniac, or whatever you prefer. A terrorist is someone who Deliberately kills a large amount of civilians for the purpose of Inciting fear. When a person blows up an abortion clinic, he's a terrorist. We have several incidences of white terrorism in America's history, though on a much smaller scale.

The difference with 9/11 was that it was terrorism organized and planned by a large organization dedicated to terrorism. That is why we decided to go to war in afghanistan. It is a war on largeorganized groups dedicated to terrorism.

OK, but how is that not also a freedom fighter? Is it not perception?

A Freedom Fighter is not someone who uses Terrorism as their primary tactic. Like i said, a huge difference. Freedom Fighters use direct assaults, guerilla warfare, etc. etc. Essentially military strategy, sneak attacks on military and government facilities, stuff like that. Wheras the primary tactic of a terrorist is to hit major civilian centers to kill as many civilians as possible. If al Queda stopped doing that entirely and only attacked U.S. soldiers, they would no longer be terrorists, instead they would merely be enemy combatants and COULD be seen as Freedom Fighters depending on who's side you're on. But right now, they are terrorists.

I am curious by that definition how the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are viewed? Is that being a "Terrorist" or a "Freedom Fighter"?

Probably neither because it was a legitimate war. The Allied forces declared war of the Axis Powers so America had to fulfill that declaration.

It depends on which side you'r on.

The IRA factions looked for a United Ireland through their separate factions and to rid British Monarchy rule in the North. They were branded as terrorists.

But then again, didn't the American revolutionists wage war in 1775 to do the same? Yet today the U.S. are branded as the 'good' guys. Trying to rid terrorism.

Total-KO

Absolute bollocks. The Continental Army never attacked civilian populations during the American revolution.

OpinionBourbons3

Exactly. In the Revolutionary War the Americans were probably branded terrorists, or an equivalent word, while the supporters of the revolution deemed them freedom fighters.

Revolutionary wars ....

a terrorist force overthrew the elected Govt ...all for tea ffs ..lol

Revolutionary wars ....

a terrorist force overthrew the elected Govt ...all for tea ffs ..lol

Uncle_Whuppitty

Explain how the Continental Army were terrorists.

The fact that you stated that is was "all for tea" makes me cringe at the probable ignorance of your answer.

Well, they fought against those in power. Just like how ETA the terrorist group are fighting against the Spanish government.

How were they NOT terrorists?

point of view

The difference between freedom fighter and terrorist i guess is about which side of the arguement your on.

Id like to think of a freedom fighter as a person who probably isn't a part of a large organized military force. more like part of a militia fighting for (actual independence ) of a nation or state. Their tactics dont include intentional harm of civilian targets.

Whereas a terrorists situation would be similar exept that their tactics might be a little less discriminating.

[QUOTE="Total-KO"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]

A freedom fighter gathers up arms to fight against a superior military and government establishment. Whereas a Terrorist kills Civilians en masse to encite terror to gain control.

So, there is a huge difference.

Tolwan

The IRA, ETA andAl-Qaeda do both.

Also, the Palestinian Military does both.

The American Revolutionary Army did both.

The American army in Iraq and Vietnam did both.

A Freedom Fighter doesnt perform terrorism. Once you start deliberately killing civilians to gain power, you are labeled a terrorist. That is what makes you a terrorist. Like, i may be a soldier, but once i start killing civilians deliberately en masse in order to gain control through fear, i then become a Terrorist.

They may still fight against the establishment, but since they use the deaths of civilian populations to do it, they are terrorists.

Also, my college history may be failing me through the summer, but i am pretty sure there were no acts of deliberate killing of civilians by americans in both the Revolutionary war and Vietnam. The stuff you heard during vietnam was by and large Propoganda by the hippie movement at the time.

Bombing of Dresden.

Not got anything to do with Vietnam but meh.

In some cases, what they are fighting for. In others, the difference is which side's propaganda you believe.

I've heard it said that some of those who fought against taxation without representation back before the U.S. became its own country could easily be considered terrorists. Considering the "Boston Tea Party," and events such as the tarring and feathering of people such as John Malcom, it is certainly a valid point. I don't mean to imply that it's particularly relevant today, but the way United States history books generally portray these things is more than a little biased in my opinion.

I think that freedom fighters and terrorists are the same. A country's freedom fighter is another country's terrorist. For example, because the Hezbollah (Lebanon) is opposed to the American ideology, the American medias will portray them as terrorists. But for the Shi'a society of Lebanon, Hezbollah is their saviors.

Like everything else in life, it's all a matter of interpretation.

Al Queda is a terrorist group, they are not fighting for liberation. The people fighting the Coilition troops in Iraq are however. They are fighting for the liberation of Iraq, however their real motivation is far from getting rid of horrible invaders. Their real motivation is based on their religion. This is why they are the bad guys, at least in relation to the advancement of Iraq as a secular, developed country.

The Americans fighting Britain in 1775 however were terrorists. They were by definition fighting for liberty, but we should only grant them with the positive connotation of freedom fighters if their reason to fight was just. Was it? No. A large majority of the patriots at the heart of the movement for a United States was made up of upper class, liberal, intellectuals who more than aything were trying to escape tax. I don't know in who's mind the casualities caused by the Revolutionary War would be justified, after they know the real motivation for the war. If Americans had not fought for independance back in 1776, there would most likely be someting like Canada in the place of the United States today. I could live with that.