freedom fighter vs terrorist

Theresa · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:19 pm freedom fighter vs terrorist**

Taken from this SF,F&D topic. I put in in CC instead of WN so that RM could post in it, since he sparked the debate.

So, please continue that discussion here. I'm really interested to see where people think the line is drawn.

WeAz · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:32 pm**

To be honest, the difference is a matter of opinion.

LightningBoy · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:33 pm**

Well, first off, I'd say Freedom Fighters actually need to be fighting for freedom; not for some extremist or religious-opressive cause. Also, I'd say that freedom fighters would generally avoid targeting civillians, but not necessarily unconditionally.

WeAz · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:35 pm**

Well, the Insurgents in Iraq could claim they were fighting for their freedom. They want us out.

LightningBoy · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:38 pm**

WeAz · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:23 pm**

THEY believe they are fighting for freedom. So do some other people. THOSE people believe they are freedom fighters. They believe they are fighting Anti-Muslim Western Expansion.

borgslayer · **Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:29 pm**

Every extremist believe that they are fighting for freedom because they think that the western cultures will ruin the religion of Islam. Every time an extremist is killed or captured it angers another who in his rage hires someone who will most likely become an extremist. Hence the spread of Terrorism occurs. Most terrorist are brainwashed to think that they are being opressed when they are not.

For the so called Freedom Fighters. A freedom fighter is a person who was actually opressed by a cruel government and has no choice but to defend themselves. The Kurdish militia is one example of Freedom Fighters. They were being killed and driven out of their homes by Saddam so they retaliated by attacking with artillery and small arms fire.

Groups led by Zarqawi, and Al-Queda are not freedom fighters they are all Terrorist. Because terrorist kill innocent civilians to advance their cause and have no care for human life not even a childs life.

A Freedom Fighter care for the people who are being oppressed so they choose only to attack the evil oppressors and not innocent civilians.

Now Rebels are nor terrorist or freedom fighters because they will kill an innocent person if demands are not met or something like that. They also are oppressed people but they have a different agenda. Unlike Freedom Fighters rebels will attack the enemy even if it means injuring or killing innocent people nearby.

I hope I make some sense...

webtaz99 · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:08 am**

This is an apples / oranges comparison.

A "freedom figter" is a political position, describing WHY one fights.

A "terrorist" is a strategic position, describing HOW one fights.

You can be one, both or neither.

Theresa · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:09 pm**

Terrorist:

Will kill anyone; combatant or not, even children.
Has no desire to solve issues by diplomatic means.
Has no regard for any laws. Even their own.
Doesn't care about collateral damage. (including lives)

Freedom Fighter:

Targets only combatants. Or military sites. (including factories)
Has exhausted all diplomatic channels.
Will try to minimize collateral damage, especially lives.
Will abide by the rules of war, (for the most part).

Back in the other topic, a comparison was made to the Revolutionary War. Since I've yet to see the movie, I can't comment on the comparison, only the war itself. Initially the colonies had no intention of independence, merely fair treatment. I mean, when you are treated as slaves, yes, you're going to revolt. But it wasn't a common practice to just run around and randomly kill anyone you felt was different, or a threat.

IntrepidIsMe · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:31 pm**

By those definitions, V was a freedom fighter.

The goverment was facist and in the end the rest of the country supported him. V's goal wasn't to terroize the population (as is a terrorist's), but to inspire them to overthrow the current system.

Republican_Man · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:39 pm**

By blowing up the London clocktower, for instance?

IntrepidIsMe · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:43 pm**

It was parliament, a symbol of their (the government's) regime. Nearly all of London went to show their support of it... The government knew about it for a year ahead of time, as well, so it's not as if no warning was given.

squiggy · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:09 pm**

Terrorist:

Freedom Fighter no one likes

Freedom Fighter:

Terrorist Everyone likes.

It sounds simple...but It does come from my simplistic and odd thought process

Republican_Man · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:10 pm**

Then what freedom was Al Quada fighting for when they flew two planes into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of innocents?

squiggy · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:18 pm**

What freedom was america fighting for when they invaded Iraq because they didn't...er...did have weapons of mass destruction?
Personally...I still think it was for cheaper prices at the gas pump.

WeAz · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:22 pm**

Theresa · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:24 pm**

squiggy · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:26 pm**

Theresa · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:28 pm**

Republican_Man · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:29 pm**

Exactly. Theresa, it's not often you do it

, but you hit it right on the ball. There's nothing more I can add to that.
Yes, we literally were fighting for freedom. They, on the other hand, are not.
On Iraq and freedom fighters or whatever, first, why are gas prices so high if we're reaping the rewards from the oil? Evidence, please. Secondly, actually on the freedom fighting stuff, we went in primarily to:
(a) Defend our country from a threat which may yet turn out partially real
(b) Liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime which put men, women, and children alike into rape rooms, torture chambers, and plastic body shredders, and even in front of their parents or children, no less. This regime also, let's keep in mind, used weapons of mass destruction against its own citizens. So, uh, yeah. That's the answer to your question.
Oh, and an example of a true, honest to God freedom fighter: George W. Bush.

squiggy · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:51 pm**

You may think whatever you wish, but you won't change my mind.
My fiancee was visiting her parents in Iraq, and her town was blown to smitherines by AMERICAN forces, So I really don't care how much stuff you have backing up your own truths.
After that Jail, and my own losses, The americans still look like bad guys to me.
Sorry.
((I'll just leave this topic alone now... I seem to anger people in it.))

Theresa · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:54 pm**

squiggy · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:48 pm**

Fact: Innocent Civilians died.
Fact: America Invaded Iraq WITHOUT the UN's backing.
Fact: Rebuilding Iraq after the war cost billions of dollars.
Fact: Iraq's war cost me my sanity for almsot a year.

How's that for a few facts for you?

Republican_Man · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:50 pm**

Fact: Innocent cvilians always die in war. It's unfortunate, but it always happens.
Fact: The UN is steeped in corruption and was involved greatly in the Oil for Food scandal, giving them ample reason not to deal with Iraq. We had to go in, regardless of whether France or the other Perm 5 members agreed.
Fact: Rebuilding a country to allow it to have freedom always costs a lot of money.
Fact: The Iraq War cost you sanity, okay. War does that to people. It has throughout history. Your point?

Theresa · **Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:05 pm**