Terrorists vs. Freedom Fighters... a debate.

In Philosphy class the other day, my teacher brought up a discussion. What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. She claimed that it was the same word from diffrerent perspectives. I disagreed and took up much of the class's time to trying to prove to her that there was in fact a distinct difference. I outlined some conditions that I will show you guys a little bit later. But, in order to strengthen my arguement to her. I want to hear from you guys.

To recap:
Is there a clear distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.

My teacher seems to side with "bat-ami bar on" (a feminist writer). on the matter.

Note: This is not an assigment I am asking for help on. It is a personal vendetta to prove a point.

Here's one simple yet very distinctive difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. IMO

A terrorist will endanger the well being of innocent people en route to achieve their mission.

A freedom fighter does not.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. She claimed that it was the same word from diffrerent perspectives.

Unfortunately, your teacher is not "denying ignorance", but is instead passing it on to the next generation.

Freedom Fighters - oppose the ruling regime through attacks on the regime's military and infrastructure

Terrorists - oppose the ruling regime through DIRECT attacks on innocent civilians to foster fear and attempt to manipulate the ruling regime through such extortion.

There is a HUGE difference between the two.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Gazrok]

Huge differance.

Terrorist- Using terror tactics to acheive goals. Gets goals done by attack civilians and causing fear amongst them. Rarely attacks millitary. Uses these attacks to get government leaders to give in and to lower the morale of the people and thus turning them against the government.

Freedom Fighter- Opposes a government throuhg attacks on millitary and infastructure, and not targeting civilians. Will not attack civilians to achieve a goal.

In short.

Terrorists kill civilians, freedom fighters do not.

[edit on 10-1-2004 by JediMaster]

For the Occupation force all Freedom Fighters are Terrorists. But not all Terrorists are Freedom Fighters. The People fighting the US Forces in Iraq right now are Freedom Fighters. They employ terroristic means. For example kidnapping foreigners or planting Bombs.

The People who attacked the World Trade Center for example were Terrorists but not Freedom Fighters. They claim they are but their "cause" is pointless. They are obviously controlled by other powers.

That was my arguement as well. However, she brings up the concept of what makes someone a combatant. Like the child soldiers of South Africa(?). Or people who are harrased into becoming soldiers.

Edit: Not tsuribo's, =) I happen to disagree. But its a valid point.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by DreamReality]

This is to all who say there is a big difference between freedom fighter and terrorists.

You're wrong! - Captain Tenneal

For one thing, who are we to define what "terror" is? Is terror ONLY intentional killing of civilians? Absolutely not! Terror can be anything from being on an elevator car plunging down the shaft to being forcibily infected by a Black Widow.

Also, just because someone kills civilians intentionally does not suddenly mean they are not fighting for freedom. Maybe that's what they find as the only way to achieve victory (since winning is what matters). And it's also a totally different way of thinking. Outside America, the concept of "innocence" is extremely gray (what is not gray in the world?).

So go ahead, flame away (even tho I'm not condoning "terrorism")!

Originally posted by DreamReality
That was my arguement as well. However, she brings up the concept of what makes someone a combatant. Like the child soldiers of South Africa(?). Or people who are harrased into becoming soldiers.

Edit: Not tsuribo's, =) I happen to disagree. But its a valid point.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by DreamReality]

I think EVERYONE is a combatant. Everything we do in live is combat. We fight for a spot on the high school baseball team, we fight for that grade we think we deserve, we fight for that job, we fight for everything in life.

Thus, everyone's a fighter.

Okay, so accordiing to Gazrok:

Terrorists - oppose the ruling regime through DIRECT attacks on innocent civilians to foster fear and attempt to manipulate the ruling regime through such extortion.

sweatmonicaIdo: So if everyone is a combatant, then they are fair game for being targetted in strikes?

What do Freedom Fighters call it when innocent civilans die? Oh yeah, collateral damge.

Originally posted by DreamReality
sweatmonicaIdo: So if everyone is a combatant, then they are fair game for being targetted in strikes?

Since when was anything fair in the world?

I don't like the idea of being fair game for being targetted, but if I'm targetted and I die, then that's what happens. If I was in the WTC on 9/11/01, then I was in the WTC on 9/11/01. Nobody says I have to like it, and I shouldn't like it. But it is what it is.

the terrorists dont appear to have a clear agenda.

I was thinking of the africans who were being targetted by the islamic militias in sudan. The native africans aren't an invading force, so the islamic militias aren't fighting to recapture any deposed civilization.

Same in Bali, where the only people killed in the recent bombings were local people. Also in Iraq there have been almost as many local people killed by insurgents than have been killed by the US.

The implication with freedom fighters is a paternalistic, protective group acting for a larger, oppressed group. In the case of terrorism, we have a very small group acting on their own, and who don't appear to have problems killing their own fellow muslims, to make a point.