What is the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters?
Freedom fighters in this case not being any different than the forefathers of the USA, or any other government that was formed in bloodshed... oh, that's all of them.
How long do you think we have before all criminals start being labelled terrorists? Will there be a new, more sinister, word?
Will humanity ever embrace a system that doesn't encourage or produce freedom fighters? If you think democracy doesn't have it's opposition, then I suggest you get out a little more because democracy does fail at times, and it's opposition is never more clear then at those times.
Utopia or Dystopia? What do these ideas, terrorism/freedom fighters, become in the future if terrorist is basically the new more sinister way of talking about freedom fighters? Was freedom fighters too nice for everyone, and terrorist is the new all time label?
What do you think? No trolling zone!
'Terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are different labels for same thing, both are overused, and neither should be associated with any kind of utopia. The words are annoying, but demonising the enemy / glorifying yourself is basically the oldest trick in the oral history.
Language changes, but this isn't a new thing.
Power corrupts. In this case, governments received extra power to fight terrorism... this particular power caused corruption in the form of a widening definition of 'terrorist', until that definition becomes wide enough to abuse.
You worry about common criminals being labeled terrorists, but that's just the beginning. If allowed to continue unchecked, it could end with even political dissenters and whistle-blowers being labeled terrorists.
(There are already rumors that criticizing the wrong people in government too loudly will put you on the no-fly list.)
Some terrorists are not freedom fighters...
Some of them mainly want to take away other people's freedom.
The two groups (terrorists and freedom fighters) sometimes overlap, and sometimes do not.
I guess it's all about the different views, different definitions of the word freedom.
A 'Freedom Fighter' would be struggling to get his group/community that form of 'freedom' which his group believes in, When that definition doesn't float someone's boat, he starts terming this person as a terrorist... that's pretty much all there is to it I guess.
Terrorists want to destroy us unlike freedom fighters where they just want change and things run their way.
Kind of the point here is that 'destroy others' and 'run things our way' often necessarily equate to the same thing when the other party refuses to back down.
I think a very interesting case can be pointed out in Indian History ... the so called "freedom fighters" : Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Ram Prasad Bismil, etc. (forgive me if I got the spellings incorrect)
While the British were ruling, these men were actually labelled as terrorists (and in fact, history books, including the ones I studied do portray these men as terrorists ... whereas they are revered and almost worshipped in India)
So, I think that the term "terrorist" is used subjectively (in the above case, the East and West depicted the "extremists" very differently)
I guess what I am trying to point out is you don't hear "freedom fighter" any more.... everyone who's counter current regime is being labelled a terrorist. I think it's limiting free speech in this country more effectively than just about anything else: it produces Fear of being labelled a terrorist.
I'd like more info on the people placed on the no fly list, and why. I understand not letting known murderers or hijackers fly on our planes, but limiting flying of individuals who are merely outspoken about their political stance is a little concerning. Any more info on this? If that's happening then we need to help make this information public, and known -- hopefully avoiding anyone on frihost being put on a no fly list. I want them to try to put me on that list. I'm an american with no ties to any terrorist groups that I am directly aware of, but it's possible because of my world travels that I have met someone who has ties to a terrorist organization. That would put me at one degree of separation, and although slightly likely, it is not something that is known to me.
I have no intension of harming anyone, but speaking out against a government that seems to produce mistakes faster than anything else, is not something I am going to stop.
Honestly, we've violated the Geneva Convention many times by stepping around it, but just because we justify it doesn't mean the world doesn't have a legitimate argument against our tactics. Sure, some Middle Eastern countries have pointed out legitimate grievance with us, our policy, and our actions, but we just label them "terrorist" and seem to queue them up for our next attacks.
I fear that soon the label terrorist will grow to encompass more and more groups. I'm perfectly ok with this label going on the "Westburo Church" and shipping them all to Guantanamo for a week. They should also be put on the "no-fly" list. This is the only place where I'm conflicted on what's been happening in this country -- the wrong people being labelled terrorist.
I can see where your coming from, but there is a chance that with people like freedom fighters taking over could actually benefit us. So there is like a 50/50 chance.
You've said it much better than me. We may also see someone as a terrorist, while if you really check out the guy, he is a freedom fighter. And the other way round. I guess Libya could be a good example. Ghadaffi probably sees the freedom fighters as terrorists.
In a simple word freedom fighters are god wherea s the terrorists are simply saitan
And this distinction is completely arbitrary and dependent upon your frame of reference. One group's good is the opposing group's evil.
There is a big difference between this two, Terrorists try and kill innocent people even if their mission is good., but the Freedom fighters respect Innocent people of whichever county they are.
Violent Freedom fighters are terrorists. They are rebelling against the system in a violent and organized way, while freedom fighters are not sufficiently violent. If were to find a way to calculate the "average violent value" of freedom fighters and terrorists, you'd find the the terrorists are significantly more violent on average.
Martin Luther King was a freedom fighter. Ghandi was a freedom fighter. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.
Sounds about right to me.
I guess you're right, but this only because not every terroristic situation is obviously a freedom fighting situation. For example, abortion clinic terrorists are far from freedom fighters (almost the opposite) but they still are "terrorists".
I can restate my claim with the "In situations where people are attempting to gain more freedoms they believe they deserve (ie: Everyone is at least a freedom fighter), it is the level of violence that determines whether they are a terrorist."
I definitely didn't mean that everyone (all people in the world) I just meant that "Ok, if you look at the people who are in that sort of business (fighting for freedom) the violence issue is probably the main difference".
Who knows what the level is, but it would definitely be noticeable in such a graph.
Even these are mutually exclusive. If guy-with-a-gun X believes that the world will be better off with his group in charge, then he might view the deaths of innocents not as something he's trying to do, but something that will in all likelihood accidentally occur during his fight. Plus, X might consider an enemy worker a 'guilty' party even if the worker is just doing their job and is considered innocent by others.
If you were going to graph violence, would an innocent death count for multiple soldier deaths? Would a planned, targeted attack could for more than a lengthy, bloodier war? How do we count assaults and torture? Is the threat of violence on a grand scale better or worse than small amount of actual violence?
The whole mess is subjective.
That's why I didn't speculate as to how to do it. I just postulated that if it could be done, we'd observe a definite significant difference.