I’m perfectly capable of thinking that they’re both terrorists and freedom fighters.
It’s not just that they “can” be both, it’s more that they “have to” be both.
“Freedom fighter” is a term reserved for the underdog, the one who can’t use sheer military power to terrorize a whole region (like a couple US Carrier Strike Groups with nukes) or some surrounding countries (like a US funded Israeli military with some nukes of their own). Established democracies and recognized states, can use their “military” to terrorize a whole population by just threatening to bomb the living shit out of the civilians, while “freedom fighters” can only terrorize through surprise attacks and extreme brutality… aka, by being “terrorists”.
Bottom line: all “freedom fighters” need to be “terrorists”, otherwise they’d be called “a military”.
somebody who goes to “freedom fighter” as their first noun for them, that’s kind of a red flag.
That’s a bit harsh, what if they understand the two are synonyms? 🤷
Terrorism is a tactic, so no, not all “freedom fighters” are terrorists. There are and have been throughout history many guerrilla groups that don’t use terrorism tactics but that could still be called “freedom fighters.”
Off the top of my head, all I can come up with associated with “freedom fighters”, is using both guerrilla tactics and terrorism to fight against some superior enemy. The next closest thing, are non-terrorist “freedom movements” like Gandhi’s (which comes with a separate can of worms).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
It’s not just that they “can” be both, it’s more that they “have to” be both.
“Freedom fighter” is a term reserved for the underdog, the one who can’t use sheer military power to terrorize a whole region (like a couple US Carrier Strike Groups with nukes) or some surrounding countries (like a US funded Israeli military with some nukes of their own). Established democracies and recognized states, can use their “military” to terrorize a whole population by just threatening to bomb the living shit out of the civilians, while “freedom fighters” can only terrorize through surprise attacks and extreme brutality… aka, by being “terrorists”.
Bottom line: all “freedom fighters” need to be “terrorists”, otherwise they’d be called “a military”.
That’s a bit harsh, what if they understand the two are synonyms? 🤷
Terrorism is a tactic, so no, not all “freedom fighters” are terrorists. There are and have been throughout history many guerrilla groups that don’t use terrorism tactics but that could still be called “freedom fighters.”
Hm… can you give an example?
Off the top of my head, all I can come up with associated with “freedom fighters”, is using both guerrilla tactics and terrorism to fight against some superior enemy. The next closest thing, are non-terrorist “freedom movements” like Gandhi’s (which comes with a separate can of worms).