I was just curious to know if people think there is a real difference between the two of them. Personally I don't really think there is a real difference between them. If you look at the definitions I looked up on the net:
Terrorist= One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant;
Freedom fighter = One engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate .
If you have a better definition, please do share it. I just took this from the net.
In a sense aren't both the same whether terrorist or freedom fighters, because both have an objective, a purpose for their actions. I mean is there a difference between IRA terrorist acts to liberate N. Ireland from the UK, something which to me geographically to me makes sense, and for example the US "liberating" Iraq? I seems to me that the only difference is basically that freedom fighters are uniformed whereas terrorists are not. Essentially, both use strategic measures to win what they are fighting for. I can't see a difference between a so called terrorist blowing up whatever to directly or indirectly win what they are fighting for, than soldiers bombing the shit out of some place just because their country's government think they are "baddies".
take al quaida for example, surely I agree that blowing up WTC was a terrible act, but it had it's aims, I mean don't they just want the US to get the hell out of the Middle East, a place where I think they got nothing to do (i know they are there for oil, but it's not on their land so therefore it's not theirs to have). Then take the Iraq war as another example, who are the US to say that they have the right to go in there and fight? Same as terrorists the soldiers use violent measures and kill innocents. But what makes it right for a "freedom fighter" to kill and destroy and not a terrorist? Since they both in most cases have political aims, and can both be equally destructive in achieving those aims.
Another question also: Can something good ever come out of terrorism, can it ever be right to use terrorist measures? Would seem to me that it can, if we look in history for example wasn't essentially "terrorists" that gave the US its independence? Can't the bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki be called a terrorist act? And that ended the WW2 (although that could've led to worse things).
To me it just seems that freedom fighters is a euphemism for justifying their killings and destructions as to terrorists.
Would be nice when you argue to use examples from history, human sciences as well as ethical perspectives. If you wonder why it's because we are currently talking about it in class, and I like to have more knowledge than others so that I can come out on top
Terrorist= One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant;
Freedom fighter = One engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate .
If you have a better definition, please do share it. I just took this from the net.
In a sense aren't both the same whether terrorist or freedom fighters, because both have an objective, a purpose for their actions. I mean is there a difference between IRA terrorist acts to liberate N. Ireland from the UK, something which to me geographically to me makes sense, and for example the US "liberating" Iraq? I seems to me that the only difference is basically that freedom fighters are uniformed whereas terrorists are not. Essentially, both use strategic measures to win what they are fighting for. I can't see a difference between a so called terrorist blowing up whatever to directly or indirectly win what they are fighting for, than soldiers bombing the shit out of some place just because their country's government think they are "baddies".
take al quaida for example, surely I agree that blowing up WTC was a terrible act, but it had it's aims, I mean don't they just want the US to get the hell out of the Middle East, a place where I think they got nothing to do (i know they are there for oil, but it's not on their land so therefore it's not theirs to have). Then take the Iraq war as another example, who are the US to say that they have the right to go in there and fight? Same as terrorists the soldiers use violent measures and kill innocents. But what makes it right for a "freedom fighter" to kill and destroy and not a terrorist? Since they both in most cases have political aims, and can both be equally destructive in achieving those aims.
Another question also: Can something good ever come out of terrorism, can it ever be right to use terrorist measures? Would seem to me that it can, if we look in history for example wasn't essentially "terrorists" that gave the US its independence? Can't the bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki be called a terrorist act? And that ended the WW2 (although that could've led to worse things).
To me it just seems that freedom fighters is a euphemism for justifying their killings and destructions as to terrorists.
Would be nice when you argue to use examples from history, human sciences as well as ethical perspectives. If you wonder why it's because we are currently talking about it in class, and I like to have more knowledge than others so that I can come out on top