What is the difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?
What is the difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
bbc.com
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
timesofisrael.com
twitter.com
Whether or not they're on your side.
Usually the number of civilian deaths
Freedom fighters tend to focus on political objectives- taking the capital
Vs blowing up children at a concert
The winner who write about it
Terrorists fight against a democratic nation
Freedom fighters fight against a non-democratic nation
Israel is not quite Switzerland democratic for example. There's a continuum between democracy and authoritarianism.
One man's justice may be another man's tyranny.
Who is democratic and who isn't is subjective most of the time.
>Usually the number of civilian deaths
Honestly, this is a good definition for me. I think using civilian murder as a tool for political change is pretty good definition of terrorism.
What side you're on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Brainlet terrorist sympathizers
Real answers
Terrorists hit innocent people. But some governments do too.
Free Palestine. The jews aren't democratic they are the enemies of freedom and peace wherever they are.
Fuck off /pol/ israel has every right to be there
terrorists do this
freedom fighters do this
>roach
It's Al-Qaida
This
For exemple, if the French resistance went to Germany to gun down civilians in the street, they'd be terrorist
But they merely shot German occupiers in France, so they arent
What right? The Desert Chronicles myth right?
They were there first before they moved
approval
Only SJW's and mudslimes support """"palestine""""
fuck off ahmed, go cry to the UN somemore
terrorist target civilians and/or engage in offensive attacks
freedom fighters attack military targets and/or fight defensive battles
They were here first lmao
Who says modern jews are direct descendants of the bible hebrews. The Desert Chronicles aren't a good base for your nationalism as they cannot be proven.
Many Israeli ''civilians'' are technically illegal settlers so are Palestinians justified to bomb them?
If anything he gets a pass for AESTHETIC.
Yes
Political goals of said organization.
Freedom fighters fight to advance/restore their liberties from a tyrant. Terrorists fight to become the tyrant.
The resistance movements of World War II such as the Maquis and Polish Home Army are considered freedom fighters because their goal was to restore the rights and liberties that they had been robbed of by Nazi Germany. ISIS is considered a terrorist organization because their goal is to install a world caliphate (i.e. a tyranny).
Cuck terrorists groups:
>PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah/anything pali/pro-pali
>IRA
>Naxalites
>Al Qaeda & affiliates
>Red Brigades
>FARC
>Muslim Brotherhood
>Basque Separatists
Chad terrorist groups
>Contras
>ISIS
>Lord's Resistance Army
>969 Movement
>Tamil Tigers
>Chechens
>PKK
>Ulster Volunteer Force
>Shining Path
>Illaga
>Anti-Balakas in Central African Republic
>Drug Cartels
It also doesn't help that these ''civilians'' are basically armed colonists
read up on lawrence of arabia and the post ww1 carving of the levant. Then tell me how palestine isn't real
>Chad terrorist groups
>no Ku Klux Klan
the klan was cucked years ago, they're more of a hateful lobbying group than a terrorist group now, since they no longer lynch people or burn crosses. The FBI has the names of all the members, and they have legal status in the US, so they can't get away with overt violence. Or at least they don't wear their uniforms and they don't take ownership of their attacks, which makes them Cuck, not Chad
Reminder if Jews occupied Lebanon they would make up some horseshit about Lebanese being ebil terrorist, dont believe their lies about these harmless sandniggers jews are evil terrorist monsters ruining their native region as they always did since the bible.
the support of the "international community" usually
KKK barely exists anymore and are just laughable inbred rednecks
wtf I love islamic immigration now
>old klan
10,000,000 members marching through DC singing stand up and be counted
>current klan
Less than 5000 members
Half of them are FBI plants to inform on the other half
They’re dead, Jim
>if Jews occupied Lebanon
>if
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED
SHOW THE WORLD THAT YOU'RE A MAN
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED
GO WITH THE KU KLUX KLAN!
Muslims are harmless compared to the demon tribe of big noses.
Number of words used.
guess who the main target of the the french 'la resistance' was?
There isn’t any. The side that wins gets to decide.
The term Guerrilla is Spanish and became popular during the Peninsula Campaign (Napoleonic Wars).
Spanish people wanted to resist French rule and were aided by the British. Since attacking French soldiers in strength was not possible, they attacked the civilian population who were helping the French instead.
Since Britain and Spain won and France lost they’re called patriotic freedom fighters. Had France won they would have been terrorists.
Exact same thing with resistance movements during the Second World War.
--
This is a tricky question.
From a legal point of view, resistance movements were illegal.
From a moral point of view, it’s very debatable. While the resistance did a lot of good, such as hiding people (millions throughout Europe), and gather valuable information, they also committed a lot of atrocities.
Resistance movements were instructed by the Soviet High Command and the British SOE to ‘undermine the morale of the enemy’. In practice this meant going for the enemy’s weak spots, mostly collaborators and their families. We’re talking about machine-gunning pubs and restaurants, decapitating people with shovels, that sort of thing.
The fact that there were reprisals was dismissed by both the Soviet High Command and the British Government as ‘inevitable’.
In the grand scheme of things, the actions of the resistance movements would these days be called terrorist actions, which was exactly what the Germans called them. But since the Allies won, these actions have been justified.
any kind of freedom fighting resistance group will always be illegal and thus considered a terrorist group, so you gotta go case by case.
I would mostly agree with though, but one could argue that most terrorist actions are because of political objectives, though I still get what he means.
Is*ael is still an illegal imperialist state, but I don't really agree with any of the Palestinian groups (that I know of) Heres a quote from Gaddafi that sums up my views on the conflict.
terrorist have people under military rule. with large walls, an occupying army, and racist laws
Why are they so fat when the SJW's and /pol/estinians tell us they're starving?
>
>highest obesity chart
>USA not on top in men and women
I’m skeptical
If we want to be technical, terrorism is violence committed upon civilians for religious or political reasons.
So if you did it because you were a paid mercenary, or you did it for funsies, you're not a terrorist.
you forgot
>old old klan
like a dozen guys who just wanted to fuck with carpetbaggers
You got it all wrong. Political terror is one of the oldest tools in humanity. It is an attempt to strike fear towards the adversary while also instilling discipline from within, purging undesirable entities inside. It is a natural consequence of the antagonism inherent in politics. Only liberals seem to want to pretend it doesn't exist.
Percent of population. Read before you type.
...
>robbespierre
>not a liberal
Again
>Ameriburgers not at the top
I’m skeptical
>Euroshits are this retarded
Why do you think you're forced to take immigrants?
American propaganda
/thread
so you are saying that US are the terrorist and ISIS are the FF