The difference between 'Freedom Fighter' and 'Terrorist'?

**Eric** · February 07, 2006, 08:56 PM

Could someone please tell, what is the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist'. Remember the Front de Liberation du Quebec? It was a 'terrorist' group in Canada that wanted Quebec sovereignty and independence. They styled themselves as Freedom Fighters but everyone else called them Terrorists. Or the Insurgents in Iraq, they could either be called Freedom Fighters or Terrorists, so what's the difference? Both use guerilla warfare against superior forces to attain a goal that would theoritically benefit their country. So, how do you tell the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist?

**O'brien the Protector** · February 07, 2006, 09:36 PM

freedom fighers are generally guerilla-warfare like troops that are fighting for the liberation of thier country or for an ideal, while terrorists are generally guerilla-warfare like troops that are fighting for the liberation of thier country or for an ideal.

honostly, the real diffrence is that freedom fighers are fighitng for a cause with popular support while terrorists arent.

**RusskiSoldat** · February 07, 2006, 09:41 PM

The difference between the two is the generaly accepted name.
Otherwise they're the same thing.

**Da Skinna** · February 07, 2006, 10:46 PM

Maybe that one believes in their ideology more than their own kind?

Iragi insurgents to the Iraqi people.
Muslim Brotherhood to most Muslims.
Basques to the ETA.
NRA to the sober Irish.
Quebecois to humans.

But seriously, what about that as the defining line to those two terms. Sorta like what that O'Brien character was saying, popular support.
Freedom fighters fight for an impoverished people with at least a little support from most of the population.
Terrorists fight for a (maybe) impoverished people without at least a little support from most of the population.

**invictus** · February 07, 2006, 10:51 PM

The difference, is one has "approval" while one does not in a sense. "Freedom fighters", fight with "moral" standards, while "terrorists" do "not". -Leon

**Valus** · February 07, 2006, 11:10 PM

Moved to the pit

**vizi** · February 07, 2006, 11:15 PM

The difference between the two is that a terrorist targets the innocent people, the people that just happen to be there, the kids coming home from school, the mothers, fathers, etc. And seek to further their "cause" by making their cause highly public. The freedom fighter avoids killing the innocents and merely fights for his cause.

**Rush Limbaugh** · February 07, 2006, 11:52 PM

The difference between the two is that a terrorist targets the innocent people, the people that just happen to be there, the kids coming home from school, the mothers, fathers, etc. And seek to further their "cause" by making their cause highly public. The freedom fighter avoids killing the innocents and merely fights for his cause.

Im glad at least one person got it right.

**bbcrackmonkey** · February 08, 2006, 12:29 AM

To qualify as a freedom fighter, your goal must first be fighting for freedom. If you are fighting for a more oppressive style of government then you are not a freedom fighter. Freedom is a very abstract concept and therefor the term "freedom fighter" should only be used where there is absolutely no doubt as to the two sides' respective intentions.

Also, there is a difference between freedom fighters, guerrillas, and terrorists. Freedom fighters, due to the fact that they are fighting against oppression, generally do not attack innocent civilians out of pure spite. Sometimes they do, as in the case of the French Revolution, where the aristocracy was put to death whether they were corrupt or not, but more often they don't.

Now guerrilla is a more neutral term. A guerrilla is merely an irregular soldier who fights in the style of a military campaign against other military targets, but does not wear a uniform or make his status publically known. Guerrillas can be just as evil as terrorists because they sometimes intermingle with each other (Iraq, Nicaruaga, etc.), and guerrillas are more than capable of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity just as a normal military can (like in Rwanda or Vietnam).

Terrorists are like guerrillas, except they pretty much exclusively target civilians, usually their motive is not to free a country but to push their unpopular political or religious agenda, and usually they are much fewer in number and organized into cells. They usually go for widely publicized attacks because they want the world to see what they've done and what they are capable of doing.

You can be both a terrorist, a guerrilla, and a freedom fighter at the same time, but the instance of being all 3 is extremely rare and most of the time you are considered one or the other. Many organizations like Hezbollah engage in both terrorist activities (targeting of non-combatant civilians out of pure spite) and military activities (attacking Israeli military outposts). Once you cross a certain line though, where your terrorist attacks become more widely publicized or more frequent than your military attacks, then you will be blacklisted as a terrorist organization.

There are international rules for deciding the definitions between a regular soldier, an irregular (guerrilla), and a terrorist/spy/infiltrator, and you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for each. I don't know the specifics of these rules though.

**O'brien the Protector** · February 08, 2006, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by brokenfingers

The difference between the two is that a terrorist targets the innocent people, the people that just happen to be there, the kids coming home from school, the mothers, fathers, etc. And seek to further their "cause" by making their cause highly public. The freedom fighter avoids killing the innocents and merely fights for his cause.

the IRA are called freedom fighters in ireland and terrorists in Great britian. We live in a total war age. There is no such thing as "merely fighting for your cuase". Fighting for your cuase means fighting for it on every level. Such things as innocense and justice are more than reletive enough to allow everyside to manipulate it for themselves.

**BassV2** · February 08, 2006, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by brokenfingers

The difference between the two is that a terrorist targets the innocent people, the people that just happen to be there, the kids coming home from school, the mothers, fathers, etc. And seek to further their "cause" by making their cause highly public. The freedom fighter avoids killing the innocents and merely fights for his cause.

nice American Propoganda. I'm sure the Iraqi Insurgents know that if they gun down some school kids, the Americans won't go away.

**deLancey** · February 09, 2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by brokenfingers

The difference between the two is that a terrorist targets the innocent people, the people that just happen to be there, the kids coming home from school, the mothers, fathers, etc. And seek to further their "cause" by making their cause highly public. The freedom fighter avoids killing the innocents and merely fights for his cause.

Again by that definition you should call the heroic RAF pilots who turned cities like Cologne, Nuremburg and Dresden into a living hell, 'terrorists' even as you call the Luftwaffe pilots who bombed London and Coventry terrorists - oh and don't forget the B-29s dropping incendiaries on Kobe, Nagoya, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No one is viewed as innocent - the sweet fraulein who goes to the Lutheran church, pays her taxes and works as a secretary in Dresden is the same good American who wouldn't hurt a fly, goes to Church every Sunday and Wednesday, helps old ladies across the street and pays his taxes is guilty as sin because the taxes pay for military bases in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, his job somehow supports the economy which makes these weapons and the economy itself squeezes the life out of the poor overseas who are vainly trying to keep body and soul together and he flaunts it through Hollywood and MTV that he can have and take and waste anything spending prodigious amounts of money on vanities while hundreds of thousands starve.

As for the innocents in Iraq - the 'terrorists' are making the point that if you support the corrupt American administration you get hurt. The Israelis have been doing it for centuries, from Zealots hunting down tax-collectors to the Hagganah blowing up British targets in Palestine. However if the occupying force can behave like its actually interested in protecting more than their own hides and really is making life better for the inhabitants (hearts and minds) AND is making a REAL effort to transfer control back into Iraqi hands then you'd see less support for the fanatics. Abdullah Everyman there just wants to live his life peacefully like Joe Everyman but when your son is taken away and possibly tortured as a 'suspected terrorist', your house searched violently and M-16s pointed at your head and those of your family all thoughts of America the beautiful and benevolent somehow vanish.

Terrorists or freedom fighters, all of them rely on the support of the masses. They vanish into them, hide among them, recruit from among them. However, if you can provide a better deal than them, prove that your taxes are more effective than 'revolutionary taxes' and ultimately give people REAL hope and REAL pride in their OWN nation not as an occupying power but as an ally who will let them manage their own affairs without ABUSING them or their natural resources - you will pull the rug out from under them. They will start attacking civilians with growing desperation and make greater demands on the people they are trying to 'liberate' - in other words they will degenerate into mere brigands. The people will hate them and turn them over to the authorities.

Just to explain myself a bit - I'm not a communist (heaven forbid) or a muslim extremist and I oppose religious extremism whether it's Islamic or Southern Baptist. I just hope that the nation can find its way back to its good roots and become part of the solution rather than being - and causing - the problems.

de Lancey

**sephodwyrm** · February 08, 2006, 12:36 AM

When a Muslim East Turkestani firebombs a McDonald's in China, killing 11 people, he is a freedom fighter.

When a Muslim carries a banner that says: "Hang Salman Rushdie", he is a terrorist-wannabe.

**Savage_Swede** · February 08, 2006, 12:39 AM

I think the difference is that terrorists seem to have almost no respect for the civilians.
But the freedom fighters often fight close to their own homes and families and therefor are much more careful while fighting for thier freedom.

**Da Skinna** · February 08, 2006, 12:44 AM

That's what I thought it would be, like freedom fighters have the support ie. not killing civilians sorta thing. While terrorists don't care about loss of life because they are so wrapped up in their own little thing.

**ChiTuMa** · February 08, 2006, 01:35 AM

If you really need to ask this question then you are too abstract for actions. Best stick with philosophy and stay away from politics. Men of action tend to not like abstraction, because it reverts away from experience.

**Grimwallace** · February 08, 2006, 01:49 AM

The only difference between any of them is point of view. To us, they are terrorists. To others, they are freedom fighters. And, with the change of times, comes a change of tactics. Unfortunatly, innocent people will always get hurt, no matter the situation. Take, for instance, the missile strike in Pakistan, which targeted an al Quaeda leader. Innocent people still died, and some Pakistanis called the Americans terrorists, along with other nations that the Americans have hurt. Terrorism is still a form of fighting a war, and with war comes innocent death, always. Again, its all point of view.

**hannibal89** · February 08, 2006, 02:08 AM

An excellent book on the subject i recommend you all read is "Terrorism the new world war"

The authors explain terrorism properly, and point out what some here said, its a matter of opinion.

I'll use an example from the book that wont offend anyone

Luke Skywalker is fighting the evil empire. He is a rebel fighting for the republic.

To the empire he is a terrorist and nothing more
To his "brothers in arms" he is a freedom fighter.

Just a matter of opinion.

Hannibal89