Freedom fighters / terrorists

[tharun]

At what point does a freedom fighter who hates an occupying force become a terrorist? What is the difference between a freedom fighter/gurerilla and a terrorist?

-tharun

[drasoini]

Freedom fighters are those who fight an occupying force or another such structured military. They focus upon non-civillian targets (For the most part, this line is REALLY blurry sometimes) and conduct small group to individual actions against said military. A terrorist uses fear against the people, rather than the military, to gain his or her desired goal.

That's the basics of the difference, it can be taken out into a long debate. I should find my notes from a very interesting Pol-Sci class I just had..

[Gilgamar]

Freedom Fighters fight wars using the tactics they can.

Terrorists don't fight wars. Terrorists attack in a totally different way. The greatest power a terrorist has is being the underdog. When a terrorist attacks, it hits a group that is so superior in power to them that any real retalliation will most likely be viewed as excessive. In this way terrorist are able to remain underdogs, gain support from those "sympathetic" to their cause and know that any casualties on their side will only be more fuel to the fire.

[Miromina]

Both freedom fighters and terrorists are underdogs in a conflict and they disagree enough to think it is acceptable to use any means to get to their goal. To break conventions, kill innocent and so on...

I have never heard about anyone getting attacked by a freedom fighter... If you are against their political goal they are always terrorists.

I believe you start calling them freedom fighters when you get to the point where you believe that the only way you can get people to listen to your views is through terror or even worse… if you have nothing but hate for everyone who help your enemy.


It would be great if everyone would follow the conventions so that the non combatants would be harmed least possible by the conflicts but in love and war everything goes... and history have sadly shown how effective a small group can be in a conflict if they use all possible means. By effective I mean that in the start they get the media cover back to a conflict where they were forgotten and in the end they end up having political power instead of having their views suppressed.

War has never been clean and resent wars have shown that it still is. Some Underdogs have shown how low it is possible to sink. This is sad but no shock to me. What shock me is the numerous times I have seen the Big Guys weighting conventions and morale against being effective and morale seem to be loosing now and then. I am no military commander and I have no idea what it would take to stick to morale all the way and what the cost in lives would be… but I do not believe the current road is the only road or even the right road.

-Peter

[Gesslar]

i suppose it depends upon who ultimately wins and tells the story.

[Jozep]

Freedoms Fighters are terrorists I support.

Terrorists are freedom fighters I don't support.