freedom fighter vs terrorist

Republican_Man · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:48 pm**

Theresa, it's not often I say it, but honestly...you are just brilliant today!

Good points, especially on the oil. He can't answer the question...tells you something, I guess.
But wait. Halliburton. It's all to help Cheney's friends out, even if they are the only ones who can do the job they're doing!

But entirely on Iraq and freedom fighting, to which the topic really pertains, but relating to that, clearly Iraq was a war of freedom fighters. America has always been there spreading good and freedom across the world. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afganhistan, Iraq, Bosnia, and a number of other instances are there in which the US worked for the betterment of Earth society. Iraq is one of those instances. Just compare--honestly--to Saddam's regime to the now in Iraq. Any honest person can see that we've been fighting for freedom and are fighting for freedom and that the Iraqi people are better off now, because of that freedom, than under an evil, murderous dictator named Saddam Hussein.

madlilnerd · **Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:13 pm**

Terrorists are more about scaring people into doing what they want. They do not always act as a reaction to something (like 9/11, they just thought America needed a shock) and they try to make as big an impact as possible. Bad publicity is still publicity, which is what they want.

Freedom fighters try to fight off oppression. They are always acting in a reaction to something else. They are usually more underground than terrorists, and don't want to hurt random people but do want to undermine an oppressive regime.

ZiriDelvar · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 79

A freedom fighter is a person who attacks a government that is oppressive (usually in their own country). Freedom fighters generally attack the government or its agencies directly.

A terrorist is someone who attacks a government that is generally considered not to be oppressive. Terrorists generally harm innocent people rather than the governments it claims to take issue with.

Republican_Man · **Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:27 pm**

But in DS9 I would argue that Kira, during the occupation of Bajor, and the Maquis were terrorists. Not that they were necessarily evil and doing wrong things (like I think), but still terrorists, nonetheless. How does your explanation explain that?

ZiriDelvar · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 79

In general, I think that Kira and the other Barjorans during the occupation targeted the occupying groups and those who aligned themselves with that group.

The Maquis were definately much closer to terrorists than the Bajorans, if indeed they did not cross that line.

Basically, my definintion of the two groups holds for me. Occasionally, the line is a little more blurry than that, but I think that the circumstances dictate the distinctions.

The Cardassians occupied Bajor without the consent of the Bajorans. Much the way the Nazis occupied France during WWII.

The group of colonies that the Federation gave to Cardassia were given over legally. It was unfortunate for the colonists, but since they were members of the Federation, it was within the Federation's right to give the colonies up. They were warned and had the option to leave. When they decided to stay in what was then Cardassian territory, it was only a matter of time before they had problems. When they decided to attack all things Cardassian, the Maquis pretty much were terrorists. Yeah they were treated badly by the deal and should have at least been able to retain a portion of the planet they were on, but it was wrong for them to attack the Cardassians. They should have left or attempted to become Cardassian citizens.