Truth? One People's Terrorist Is Another People's Freedom Fighter?

Your primary question is true.

It is part of a Government's ability to wage war without the morality or unconscionable aspects of it being questioned by it's citizens. The media is the Government's propaganda apparatus which dehumanizes and eliminates sympathy for it's enemy; it is an appeasement which serves to make you not feel bad about death and destruction on wholesale level.

It sounds better to wage war on "terrorists," later amended to "insurgents", both terms being acceptable as justification to kill them, rather than "patriot," defending their homeland, just as we would do, against foreign aggression and invasion.

okay, well I don't know the whole story and I am sure this "news" report is somewhat biased- (??worshipping a picture of Bush??? If that were the case then these are not true Christians) So as for the question terrorists or freedom fighters? well- basically the most extreme thing they are doing is praying- do you feel threatened when one prays?? Are you feeling that oyur safety is compromised because someone is praying?? Do you fear for the lives of your children because someone is praying ?? When a Christian talks about being a warrior- they are basically talking about praying, sharing the gospel, worship. anyone who includes acts of violence and hatred in what they do is not practicing what they preach- BUT as a Christian we cannot be tolerant of sin- we have to hold a standard and wrong is wrong- it is not our place to punish or condemn the sinner- we all are in need of salvation and deliverance- but we are to tell the truth and we are not to compromise on what God call an abomination. So we pray, we intercede for those who have not been told the truth, we ask for strength and courage to share the gospel in a loving and compassionate way, but a way that is not passive and compromising regarding sin. If you are feeling threatened or terrorized because people are praying then all I can say is call me a terrorist! It really is kind of sad

The French resistance in World War Two was fighting a horrible invading force. Nazi Germany was evil. Fighting against evil is not terrorism.

The US in Iraq is a liberating force, and the terrorists against us are anti-freedom, and they're evil.

Israel is a nation with the right to exist, and lots of terrorists want to exterminate Israel, and they're evil.

Bin Laden is twisted. He thinks his God wants him to murder innocent people. That is just nutso. His terrorist buddies are murdering Americans and murdering Israelis and murdering lots of Arabs, too. Evil.

If a guy is standing there holding up a sign saying "Israel out of the West Bank!" that's one thing. I can respect that. But if this guy then blows up a school bus, then I no longer give a damn what he wants. He is now evil and I want him dead.

I sure wish there weren't so many evil people out there. But there are. And if they're threatening innocent people, then I want them stopped. By whatever means necessary.

I'm glad you're putting thought to this.

P.S. “what if iraq invaded the US to free african americans from oppression, isn't that fighting for their freedom too?” … no, because African Americans are already free. That invasion would be totally false.

“What if vietnamese bombed new york during the US invasion of Vietnam? They would certainly be called terrorists” … no, that’s war. Different from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked is for no good reason.

“American has never been invaded” … except for the War of 1812. But, regardless, we know what invasion is like. We understand it.

“what if UAE invaded the US to free US muslims from Christian ‘oppression’” … no, because US Muslims are not oppressed. To make your comparison work, Saddam would not have been a dictator. But he was a dictator.

“the only effective measure they have is against civilian personell” … “Effective” is not the criteria. If it was effective to cut a baby’s head off, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

“the taliban and iraqis think they're fighting against evil too.” … but their society is obviously screwed up. If my God says I should shun the modern world, that’s fine. But if my God says I should murder anybody who drives a car, then I’m just wrong. I suppose the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was a good idea, but it wasn’t.

What you’re broaching is “moral relativism,” where you can’t criticize any society. And that’s bull. Consider this: America with black slavery was morally inferior to America after black slavery. You certainly can compare societies. A society where it’s okay to murder anybody who doesn’t worship my God is not a good society. No way around that.

“And there are more than a few countries that agree with them.” … it’s not a popularity contest. The majority can be wrong.

But I like your questions!

Terrorism, by definition, is indefensible on any grounds. Resistence or freedom fighting is acceptable because its primary targets are established enemies of a particular country or region who are carrying out orders from superiors.

Example. The American Independence movement was a resistence. The colonists resisted the taxes and other levies laid on them by the King of England without representation in Parliament. Were innocent bystanders injured or killed as a result? Probably.

Terrorists, on the other hand, are not concerned with whether their victims are official, military, or civilian. They have no state or kingdom to which they pledge allegiance. Their primary goal is to intimidate or eliminate all who stand in the way of their objective with no thought to women, children or non-combatants.

As to whether it's fun being a terrorist? You would have to ask the suicide bombers who have specifically targeted civilians in their campaigns.

- Oh wait - they are all dead. I guess you can't ask them.

In conventional warfare you are correct, however terrorist acts such as 911, the embassy bombings are just terror. The USS Cole was a military target therefore legit to a freedom fighter, even though I wish we'd of hung the attackers. Its a fine line but thre is a difference, othrwise the victor determines who was the freedom fighter who was the terrorist

Terrorism is a specific strategy. You carry out more or less random attacks against a population in order to instill terror in that population, so that its members and leaders will be forced to acede to whatever your agenda is to get you to stop.

You can be a freedom fighter and not a terrorist, you can be a freedom fighter and resort to terrorism, you can be a terrorist who's agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

So, no, being "another person's freedom fighter" doesn't automatically get you off the hook for being a terrorist.

It is true to an extent and depends on context and one's view of the situation.

Terrorists tend to go after civilian targets only to terrorize the population (hence the name). The French underground was very likely going after Nazi military targets not their own people necessarily. Sunnis and Shia are going after each other in Iraq. Terrorists there are killing their own people and our soliders. Yes, we are occupying. But we are only doing so until Iraq is stable. Germany had no such intention of leaving France.

In the US Revolutionary war, one could argue that the colonists were terrorists. But again, they targetted military and gov. targets-- not innocent civilians.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters are indeed a matter of perspective, but they also share methods of using fear and violence to promote their ideals and force their beliefs on those that refuse to accept it.

If the US were invaded and Americans fought back, we wouldn't necessarily be called freedom fighters nor terrorists; we might be called insurgents or resistance soldiers. If we planted car bombs and performed suicide attacks against civilians, then yes, one could make that debate; the name freedom fighter or terrorist is in the manner of combat, not the goal.

Similar in the way that during the American Revolution, those that we now call "patriots" were then called "traitors". It's all in your perspective; potato, potahto.

At first blush, it seems a difficult argument to overcome. Until you consider 9-11. Some die-hard Liberals, will say we committed acts of aggression which led to al qaeda attacking us. Okay, then, so what about Timothy McVeigh?

Liberals like to throw Timothy McVeigh, the abortion clinic bombers, and other non-Arab "terrorists" at us, so what about them?

Did the US create them? Are they also victims of the Great Oppressor?

At what point do murderers have to take responsibility for their own actions, according to Liberals?

The very premise of your question is flawed. Just what freedom are these terrorists "fighting" for? the answer is none. They are fighting to impose their version of Islam on the rest of the world. Islam has historically been spread by the sword.

I vehemently disagree the lumping in of the USA with Western Europe. The USA has done more to free people in this world than any other country. Stop regurgitating what your commie university professor told you and think for yourself for a change.