What is the diference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist"?
441828
Very good question.  As you know, there isn't any difference at all.  As a solider (freedom fighter) fighting for so-called democracy in Iraq, I kill an Iraqi insurgent.  In America (for the most part), I'm a hero, I'm right.  In Iraq (for the most part), I'm the devil, I'm the terrorist.  Yet, if you thought the destruction of the World trade Center was horrible, imagine living in the hell that is Iraq ever since U.S. Troops arrived.
1042231
terrorism is a word was called by the west for all what is against america and what america and israel wanna do. so it is so hard thesedays to distinguish between who fights for freedom and who has the hobby of killing people!!\nlet me ask u a question now myself... if u were sitting peacefully in ur house and suddenly a stranger jumped from the window and tried to kick u out of ur house, the house that u love all ur life, so as a corresponding action u brought a gun and killed him or injured him to defence ur house and urself, who is the terrorist?? u or the stranger?
215880
all countries that support terrorism should be bombed. the trouble is who is a terrorist?\nUSA supports the IRA - deemed terrorist by US allies UK\nPakistan supports groups India has called terrorists\nIsraeli settlers have been called terrorists by palestinians\nso - who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist? and who should be bombed? all who we call terrorists or also the US, Pakistan Israel?
652762
It is a question of methods.  You and some others suggest there is a moral equivalence between terrorists and freedom fighters; that it is a question of perspective.\n\nSuch views are mistaken.  Terrorists attack civilians.  They attack non-combatants.  They deliberately kill people who are simply going about their ordinary, everyday lives.  As the name implies, they do that to cause terror among such people.  Terrorists attack women and children in markets; they blow up people on busses, they bomb churches and mosques.  Terrorists are cowards, thugs and murderers.\n\nTrue freedom fighters, such as the French Resistance in WWII, attack the enemy army.  This is much more dangerous and requires much more courage than blowing up women and children in a market or on a bus.\n\nThe Boston Tea Party was more akin to civil disobedience than to either terrorism or freedom fighting.  They simply dumped some tea into the harbor to make the point that they didn't want to pay taxes on it.  It was a way of saying we would rather not have the tea than pay unfair taxes on it.\n\nGandhi's entire Resistance movement was based on civil disobedience; he did not fight at all.  When the British outlawed making salt, he went down to the sea and made salt.  He did not bomb a church.  He did not blow up a market.\n\nWhen the US colonies decided to rebel against England, they formed a government and an army with officers and uniforms and flags.  They fought in the open against the British troops who were trying to suppress the rebellion.  That makes George Washington a soldier, neither a terrorist, not a freedom fighter.\n\nThere are a great many people in history and today who resist tyranny with dignity, courage and honor.  There are many who seek to impose their will by murder, terror and intimidation.  To attempt to equate the two with some relativistic mumbo-jumbo dishonors the lives of those who fight with dignity, courage and honor and reveals your own incapacity to make true distinctions.
534353
Hate is the reason they exist.  Fear of anything different is the reason they exist.  They kill for nothing more than the sake of killing.  In reality, they believe in no god, have no compassion and no conscience.  As long as people can be swayed by hate and fear, terrorists will exist.  When I die, I intend to go haunt Osama Bin Laden and drive him so mad that he can't function!  I am sorry for the loss of your school mate.
43748
depend on the defination of terrorist, whether they are like bush or sharon or as plastinans who really fight for their country
491208
A terrorist for someone is a freedom fighter for other. It actually depends on which side you are. Yes you are right there is no difference between a marine killing a civilian and a terrorist killing a civilian.
835060
Sure\nu can collect detail about terrorist and terroism in following links\nwww.terrorworld.com\nwww.truetalibans//wars.com\nww.rdxterrorist.com\nand also wikipediya of terrorist\nall the best
837292
Depends on who is running for office..I have noticed that Bush interchanges these words to fit the audience.\n A terrorist would be an outside agitator with no Country identity ,,whereas the insurgent is not unlike our own forefathers who fought the British.
12604
The difference is that for the US, it is morally proper as an act of self-defense, in the interest of protecting freedom-loving citizens.\n\nIn the USSR, it was to suppress any actions that would break down the communo-facist regime by individuals who WANTED freedom.\n\nUS: Self-defense\nUSSR: Oppression
205378
Terrorism = acts of violence commited against non-combatants (that includes civilians and auxiliary military personnel and any military that's not actively involved in an open armed conflict) with the purpose of harming the psychological balance of the enemy (basically seeding terror within an opponent's ranks).\n\nThe men fighting US and UK in Iraq (and elsewhere where US and UK have troops on soil other than their own) are basically freedom fighters. But when they employ tactics that are ment to seed fear rather than obtain tactical advantages over a declared enemy, that makes them terrorists also.\n\nHowever even here there's a fine line as some freedom fighters commit terrorists acts others don't. The difference is even more obscured by the fact that US declared a war on terror and if such a notion is to be taken seriously (though normally it isn't enough to just say you're at war and actually considered to be at war lawfully) then the attacks against US personnel in Iraq can't be considered terrorist acts, since it's war.\n\nIf another country occupied mine I would fight by any means I see fit. There is only one justified reason for occupation and that is if the occupied country has requested foreign military intervention through recognized representatives that speak for an accepted majority of the country. Sometimes the UN can authorize military intervention on a country's soil if that country has commited repeated acts of aggresion against UN members or the violent conflict within a country threatens the territorial integrity of a UN member. If my country would be at fault for any of these, I would join the occupation force (which wouldn't be called an occupation force anyway).\n\nAs such, the US presence in Iraq isn't justified and is also illegal. The US campaign there was accomplished with the use of lies, deception and acts of terrorism performed by US military (attacks against civilian population, economic embargo even of humanitarian products, the 'oil-for-food' extorsion attempt - some which were conveniently called mistakes, a very unbelievable excuse from the most modern army in the world which also claims high moral principles).\n\nAgain, as such we can identify two types of terrorism: classic terrorism (performed by international organisations such as Al-Qaeda or national such as ETA or IRA that usually employs physical violence: guns, bombs, etc) and neo-terrorism (or state-terrorism - performed by a nation against another, state-endorsed which employs methods of economic coercion, indirect violence against civilian population such a economic embargo, high prices for food and water, etc commonly performed by US, Israel and sometimes China outside of international lawmaking agencies such as UNESCO and UN).\n\n--- to bungiebabe (edit): it will be a challenge to find the source which I copy/pasted simply because it doesn't exist. All answers I give come from my personal experience and research (I am correspondent on Middle East issues for some newspapers in my area, which is why I tend to answer this type of questions) and sometimes I credit Noam Chomsky and Annabel McGoldrick for quotations, but I don't copy paste. My main source is, as always if you've followed my posts, www.un.org and the UN list of General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions.
38555
Define "Terrorist".  Then ask if it would be better to kill all terrorists then 1 innocent person.  I would say yes.  They can come up with an intelligent way to change things instead of violence.  If someone is potentially violent because of nothing but hatred that has been brainwashed into them are they safe for society?\n\nIf you could have killed Hitler and saved many millions of lives, would you?
273056
A terrorist is a person who intimadates others by means of psycological and/or physical means. They want others afraid of them.\n\nFrom the time man began on this planet there were terrorists. You can see a good example of this in school yard bullies.\n\nI am afraid they are not going away and will be around as long as mankind exists.\n\nTerrorists do not always kill or blow themselves up and you can find plenty of them in all countries of the world and in all societies.
942870
You are more likely to be a victim of crime than terrorism. This just shows you where their priorities lie. Scaremongering rather than solving.
74042
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.\nwww.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm\n\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Terrorist\n\nThe exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. According to one of the primary working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).
527579
Terrorism is an extreme act in opposition to something or someone you personally value.  \n\nThe "legal right to fight against occupation" is an extreme act in support of something or someone you personally value.\n\nOne person's patriot is another person's terrorist.
547954
Depends what your argument is. and what exactly the debate is about. Good to know your oppositions points ahead of time though. Does one side want to say terrorism is good.\n\nSome say that a terrorist is just a freedom fighter, the difference is that terrorist kill innocent civillians in order to scare or terrorize the general population. Freedom fighters fight guirilla warz against the military and police.\n\nTerrorists (usually) have no unified flag and are just disgruntled individuals working on their own. It is said that there are larger groups that are working together. Your Al Qaida, kkk, skin heads, \n\nWhy do terrorists terrorize, even if not valid reasons what is their excuse. Are they oppressed, what?\n\nWhat is the govt. doing about it, at home and abroad?\n\nIs it as big a threat as some people make it seem?