385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
385 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22097 readers
269 users here now
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.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I know a few people in real life who are referring to them as freedom fighters.
Idunno, I don't fuss about that because I'm perfectly capable of thinking that they're both terrorists and freedom fighters.
They're fighting for the freedom of Gaza... but they use terrorism tactics, refuse to abide by ceasefires, and have genocidal beliefs.
Those don't seem mutually exclusive for me.
We all contain multitudes.
But that said, somebody who goes to "freedom fighter" as their first noun for them, that's kind of a red flag.
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).
The last part of what you said was what I was hoping to get at. To a few people I know, theyre freedom fighters and rebels before terrorists.