Is there a difference between freedom fighter and terrorist?

"we dont do duvets"...

As they say one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist I truly believe this saying. It all depends what side of the fence your on and what you believe to be right and wrong . Look at Bush some will say he's fighting for freedom others call him a terrorist it's a view point :)

Nexus6

A freedom fighter fights against an armed force only (like the French Resistance in WW2). A terrorist targets civilians.

sosgez

It just depends on who is reporting the incident.

iraqisax

A terrorist is a person who commits terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force, or the threat to use force against soft targets, like unarmed civilians.

A freedom fighter is a person who is fighting for freedom. If a freedom fighter resorts to terrorism, I guess that would make him a terrorist.

Andy

Are you serious? I guess I have never heard of a freedom fighter strapping a bomb to a baby. But I guess I don't know everything about the revolutions in history. I suppose some freedom fighters could be terrorists, but most freedom fighters are fighting for freedom from tyranny not to start it.

northcarrlight

no not much - Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for murder and planting bombs

Archangel Gabriel

Yes. Ghandi and Martin Luther King are examples of freedom fighters who rejected terror.

Zaina

Ronald Regan once called Osama Bin laden and the Taliban freedom fighters when America were supplying them with weapons to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. But now they're called terrorists.
Nelson Mandela was once called a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher and now people hail him as a freedom fighter.
So i guess it depends on your Agenda, and if anyone is thinking about giving me the thumbs down I'm just stating facts not my opinion.

Dunrobin

Yes, though they can overlap. A freedom fighter does not necessarily seek to terrorise civilian populations to attain his ends. He might only attack government or military targets. One could perhaps say that the American colonists who fought for independence were freedom fighters, but they were not terrorists. Eta, the IRA and the FLQ wanted a change in the Basque/Northern Ireland nationalists/Quebecers' political status, but used violence to frighten people to gain independence, etc.

A terrorist is not necessarily a freedom fighter. Al Qaeda is not seeking liberation for their people, nor were groups like the Bader-Meinhof gang seeking to free an oppressed people. The Greek November 17th group used terror against foreigners in Greece for over 25 years, but Greece was a fully independent country. They were not really fighting for freedom.

I was disgusted when an American congresswoman came to N Ireland when lived there and refused to call the IRA terrorists, even though they targeted civilians and killed children. She was from New York - I wonder what she thinks of them now?

Beth

What side of the debate you are on.

N. Cognito

Terrorists are created when people's grievances go unaddressed and their means of forcing the issue are limited. These grievances usually include but are not limited to restrictions on freedom.

Freedom fighters are addressing a single issue - freedom - and their methods may include terrorism.

Contrary to what some people claim, a terrorist is NOT simply a person who targets civilians; the same people who make this claim often call the attacks on the USS Cole and Marine barracks terrorist attacks, ignoring their own contradiction.

dude

Yes.

Basically, a terrorist is someone who tries to rule by fear. They include the Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, the JDL, pirates, Hitler, Stalin, and many others.

A freedom fighter is someone who tries to get rid of tyrants, they fight in order to live in peace and liberty later. They don't tend to attack civilians, police, or anyone who peacefully does their job.

Terrorists will attack children to scare their parents into submission. Freedom fighters will kill terrorists so that their children don't have to live in fear.

----
Oh, and BTW to other answerers, Reagan's boys weren't supplying the Taliban. There were Mjd and all those, who the Taliban massacred. And bin Laden was never on America's side. Not a fan of the Mjd, they were very unpopular, which is why so many Afghans welcomed the Taliban. Taliban aren't Al Qaeda either, they harbored them.

some in the CIA have supported other terrorists, including the IRA, and I think Kissinger supported Unita, who were terrorists (the Cubans supported the opposing MPLA, who also committed Terrorist acts).

gjkishere

It depends on your point of view. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Normally it breaks down to this: if you agree with the person's goals you see them as a freedom fighter, if you disagree you see them as a terrorist.

nicolus008

freedom fighters they fight for there freedom for what is belong to them .......ex someone came and take your purse maybe you will hurt him to take it

just the facts

Maybe. Maybe not. It just depends on the tactics they use. If they cut people's heads off on TV and round up innocent people and torture and then kill them overnight, and kill themselves with a bomb just to kill some innocent people, that is TERRORISM, my friend and I do not give a hoot if you SAY it is not. If they call themselves freedom fighters and they practice the above procedures, they are TERRORISTS.

Voice of Reason

Point of view.

Northcarrlight - you're wrong about Nelson Mandela. Try reading up some facts before commenting.

CLIVE H

The answer to your question very much depends which side you are on. Take the case of the IRA as an example. Many people on the Republican side in Ireland thought of and still think of the IRA as freedom fighters. Here in UK the opposite is mostly how people see the IRA.

The same is true of any other terrorists/freedom fighters.

No one in their right mind thinks of Muslim suicide bombers as freedom fighters - unless they are completely insane that is. Such people, even in the 'sane' Muslim world [if there is such a place], think of such people are evil.

Wise Heart

When Bin laden was supported by the CIA and American weapons to use against soviet union, he was freedom fighter. Now when the first show ends he is called a terrorist while he was an agent.
According to many definitions for terrorism here I can say that the American freedom fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists as they are shooting civilians and most of the deaths in both countries were civilians including thousands of innocent children. Shame on this freedom death.

Whatever.

Yeah, success.

ALISTAIR G

depends if you work for the bbc or not.

The Count

Well, that's a tough one. The Palestinian group called Hamas calls itself
freedom fighters. Under that "banner" they carry out attacks on innocent Israelis who are just going about their daily lives. A group in Lebanon called Hezbollah say they are freedom fighters. Under that banner, they shoot rockets into southern Israel , killing people who are totally innocent. The insurgents in Iraq would like us to think they are freedom fighters, trying to drive the American infedels from their land, when in fact these insurgents come from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia to join in the fight against the Iraqis getting their freedom. How ironic ! So, in light of these examples, I would say that freedom fighters are terrorists in disguise, nothing more !

it is me

i dont know mucky... whats the difference between the IRA and the PLO? the CIA and the KGB? FBI and Doris day? BB king? the queen of England and the queen of Sheba...chocolate pudding and blood pudding?etc etc etc

nosdda

A freedom fighter is a more up market title.

aNz

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

cassidy

about the same I would say

bellyman

a freedom fighter is fighting against his own people as he/she does not be leave in the leaders of the country which runs his/her country....

a terrorist is someone who will fight against anyone who does not be leave in they way of live, or will fight against a any race they be leave to be below them.. and who are willing to take they fight outside of they own lands if need be..
plus many more reasons....

jpenergy@sbcglobal.net

it depends on who you talk to, Washington and Jefferson were terrorists to the British in 1778. It's all in the perspective.

Truth.forall

The difference is perception. It depends who controls and influence our perception and HOW MUCH you and I allow them.

musashi

As some have pointed out, there is a difference, though the lines have, apparently, been blurred.

Terrorists use terrorism as a weapon and a tactic. Think on this, can a government or an agency thereof -- for instance an army or navy -- become terrified? Or is it more appropriate to say that people can become terrified, and thus intimidated into bending to the wills of the agents of terror; the terrorists. That is why terrorists strike primarily at unarmed civilians such as Olympic teams, market-place shoppers, nightclub goers, office workers, and so on. Further, they do this in support of a political or ideological agenda, which may or may not be in response to perceived political or social oppression.

Freedom fighters, on the other hand, usually strike at the armed forces and the supply lines thereof of their perceived oppressors.

The insurgents in Iraq have struck at military units as well; however, their preferred targets are usually civilians. They do this for two reasons. First, there is less chance of them getting killed or caught in the attack (save for the suicide bombers, that is). Second, they seek to erode the confidence and wills of the free Iraqi people, and to incite frustration and protests among the Allies' civilian populations.

Based on these observations, it is safe to call the insurgents terrorists and not freedom-fighters.

armyman_432

terrorist main purpose is to instill terror in a heart of people both civilian and military. They target both military and civilians. Freedom fighter is a term used when a group of people fight against and armed group whose purpose is led by nationalism.

Sir W

They are the same. it is used by the fighting groups to name-calling their counterparts on the other side.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: