• jarfil@beehaw.org
    7·
    1 year ago

    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? 🤷

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        5·
        1 year ago

        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).