# What's The Difference Between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 1, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774 "2013-01-01T20:56:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Scholar\_Beardpig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Scholar\_Beardpig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scholar_Beardpig)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/61 "2013-01-04T02:20:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > " ‘Terrorist’ is what the big army calls the little army." Yeah, pretty much. Especially if they don’t wear uniforms. (What? The system benefits me immensely. Why shouldn’t I support it?) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/62 "2013-01-04T02:36:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Eh? They are primarily there to destroy the enemy’s capability to counterattack. Decimating the enemy population is just a useful side effect. Maybe I’m being whooshed, but they most certainly were and are there to wipe out the enemy’s population. That’s the whole point of [Mutually Assured Destruction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction). The [Single Integrated Operation Plan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan) had over 16,000 targets at the height of the Cold War. As Winston Churchill put it, “If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.” ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/63 "2013-01-04T03:04:38Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Maybe I’m being whooshed, but they most certainly were and are there to wipe out the enemy’s population. That’s the whole point of [Mutually Assured Destruction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction). The [Single Integrated Operation Plan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan) had over 16,000 targets at the height of the Cold War. As Winston Churchill put it, “If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.” Check out “counterforce” and “countervalue”. Most nuclear weapons were targeted at the other sides weapons and supporting infrastructure (“counterforce” than Population centers (“countervalue”). ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/64 "2013-01-04T03:14:15Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > No. The strategic bombing campaigns were carried out to: destroy German industry, divert German resources, and weaken German morale. The first two aims are completely legitimate aspects of a military campaign, thus the strategic bombing campaigns cannot be condemned unreservedly. Nonsense; the only part of this statement that is true is the intention to weaken German morale, but that was to be done by killing German civilians. I’d suggest you read up on [Area Bombing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive): > [@](#): > > The Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government’s Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants. , [Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet), and [dehousing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing). The US Army Air Corps paid lip service to the idea of precision bombing and honestly believed it was possible when they started their bombing campaign, but it quickly became painfully obvious that precision bombing wasn’t possible. Any pretense of precision bombing was dropped during the strategic bombing of Japan; the targets explicitly became urban areas. From the [USSBS](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#taaatjhi): > [@](#): > > On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible. Incendiaries were used instead of high-explosive bombs and the lower altitude permitted a substantial increase in bomb load per plane. One thousand six hundred and sixty-seven tons of bombs were dropped on Tokyo in the first attack. The chosen areas were saturated. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo’s most densely populated area were burned to the ground. The weight and intensity of this attack caught the Japanese by surprise. No subsequent urban area attack was equally destructive. Two days later, an attack of similar magnitude on Nagoya destroyed 2 square miles. In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated. > [@](#): > > No. I can’t speak to every bombing campaign since 1945, but the mere fact of civilian casualties does not make it terrorism. That wasn’t my question, it’s not the mere fact of civilian casualties, it’s the fact that civilian casualties are going to be heavier than military casualties even if civilians aren’t the intended target. > [@](#): > > How’s that? How is it not? “The systematic use of terror as a means of political coercion” is what war is. [War is the continuation of politics with the intermingling of other means](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz) and all that. > [@](#): > > It was to disrupt the German military’s ability to resist invasion and defeat, pursuant to a war effort. Which was done by setting off bombs in German markets and demanding the unconditional surrender of Germany, which would include demanding that Germany withdraw from Poland. Again, your definition of terrorism isn’t particularly useful. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/65 "2013-01-04T03:27:46Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Most nuclear weapons were targeted at the other sides weapons and supporting infrastructure (“counterforce” than Population centers (“countervalue”). I’m really going to have to ask for a cite that most nuclear weapons were counterforce rather than counter value targeted; you don’t need 16,000 targets for counterforce strikes. By the end the overkill was so great that multiple nuclear warheads were being assigned to cement factories. In any event, every single city in both the US and USSR was going to be hit by at least one nuclear warhead in a strategic nuclear exchange, and the target was going to be the city itself and the civilian population living there. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/66 "2013-01-04T04:28:35Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > So the absolute condemnation is not that absolute as it depends on the motivation not the outcome. Correct, intent matters more than consequence in moral judgment. > [@MarcusF](#): > > It appears innocent casualties are acceptable and it is not terrorism if there is a military justification for the attack - killing the enemy head of state, bombing a factory supporting the war effort, or even bombing a whole city to disrupt the enemy’s ability to resist invasion. Yes. > [@MarcusF](#): > > So, by this definition, is a bomb on an Israeli bus containing an Israeli soldier an act of terrorism? Apparently not. From a Palestinian point of view the soldier is a legitimate target and the other casualties not a deciding factor. **If** the Palestinian were a legitimate military actor, then yes, it’d be a poor policy, and should be condemned, but it’s not terrorism if the soldier was the target, pursuant to a war effort. > [@MarcusF](#): > > Personally I cannot see why setting off bombs in a German market in an attempt to force a German withdrawal is indefensible but creating a fire storm that kills 60000 people is a “completely legitimate aspects of a military campaign”. Both have the same perfectly legitimate objective - preventing a Nazi victory - just one is carried out by several thousand young men in uniforms while the other is carried out by one or two individuals. The difference seems clear to me; YMMV. > [@MarcusF](#): > > Note: I am not arguing that the strategic bombing campaign was wrong or in any way equivalent to the bomb on the Tel Aviv bus but that your view of “terrorism” is just too simple. Understood about the equivalence; what definition should replace it? > [@Dissonance](#): > > Nonsense; the only part of this statement that is true is the intention to weaken German morale, but that was to be done by killing German civilians. I’d suggest you read up on Area Bombing: Untrue. Look at the [Schweinfurt=Regensburg mission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt%E2%80%93Regensburg_mission) for one of many strategic bombing missions carried out to destroy German industry. As to diversion of resources, here’s the European Theater report of the [United States Strategic Bombing Survey.](http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm), the same body you cited. > [@USSBS Summary Report](#): > > Also, in the aggregate, they caused some diversion of resources from essential war production, although this effect was minimized by the substantial cushion in Germany’s war economy until the closing months of the war. On to the third aim. Note: > [@](#): > > The Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government’s Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack **the German industrial workforce** and **the morale of the German populace** through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants. Is that not precisely what I said? > [@Dissonance](#): > > Any pretense of precision bombing was dropped during the strategic bombing of Japan; the targets explicitly became urban areas. Yes, see the [firebombing of Tokyo.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing_of_Tokyo) This isn’t terrorism, however, it’s a distasteful military tactic with a military aim: ending the war in the Pacific. > [@Dissonance](#): > > That wasn’t my question, it’s not the mere fact of civilian casualties, it’s the fact that civilian casualties are going to be heavier than military casualties even if civilians aren’t the intended target. No, that doesn’t make it terrorism. > [@Dissonance](#): > > How is it not? “The systematic use of terror as a means of political coercion” is what war is. War is the continuation of politics with the intermingling of other means and all that. The key word being terror. The Charles Tilly definition of which is “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime.” War is not terror. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Which was done by setting off bombs in German markets and demanding the unconditional surrender of Germany, which would include demanding that Germany withdraw from Poland. Again, your definition of terrorism isn’t particularly useful. See above. > [@Dissonance](#): > > By the end the overkill was so great that multiple nuclear warheads were being assigned to cement factories. In any event, every single city in both the US and USSR was going to be hit by at least one nuclear warhead in a strategic nuclear exchange, and the target was going to be the city itself and the civilian population living there. That’s a side effect of a massive build-up in warheads, not a strategy in itself. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/67 "2013-01-04T04:31:13Z")
I forgot a fourth aim of the Allied strategic bombing: disruption of German transportation networks. > [@USSBS report](#): > > The attack on transportation was the decisive blow that completely disorganized the German economy. It reduced war production in all categories and made it difficult to move what was produced to the front. The attack also limited the tactical mobility of the German army. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/68 "2013-01-04T15:23:15Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > So in WWII when U.S. bombed Hiroshima, they were freedom fighters? If the Japanese had won WWII would they have called the U.S. terrorists. “Terror” and “Terrorist” are close, but not exactly the same thing. “Terror” isn’t something that nations shun, while “Terrorism” is (mol). (Enough w/the quotation marks.) Terrorists, proper, attack civilian populations for political goals. An attack on a civilian population, as in a wartime scenario, is to end a war, reminding an enemy of the terrors of keeping up their futile resistance. Menachim Begin (I think) was on some show during the 80s (the Lebanese thing) discussing terrorism, and somebody accused him of having been a terrorist in the 48 War for Independence. He said the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist was that the FF targeted military, and the terrorist targeted civilians. The term Terror was used in the French Revolution quite openly by the ruling group. Robispierre wrote a monograph/speech on the necessity of terror in the context of the Revolution. He got quite a bit of praise for his acts of terror. In short, a Terrorist is one who targets civilians as a cheap and easy policy. Governments who attack civilians during a war do it as a rare resource, to bring the war to a close. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/69 "2013-01-04T15:31:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You hit a military target (let’s say an enemy’s HQ or a weapons factory or a vehicle carrying enemy commanders) and some civilians die = non-terrorism. > > You hit a civilian target (a commuter bus, a pizzeria, a wedding hall) and some civilians die = terrorism. > > To make it clearer: the attack on the World Trade Center was terrorism. The attack on Pentagon wasn’t. By that definition Brevik was a freedom fighter when he bombed the government building and thereafter tried to eliminate the previous but still powerful Norwegian PM. But whatever. It doesn’t really matter. It’s just words and I have no problem not being objective. The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the difference between who needs to be killed. Terrorists are the enemies that need killing. Freedom fighter are the friends that we like. Brevik obviously need to be killed so he is a terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/70 "2013-01-04T15:36:40Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > By that definition Brevik was a freedom fighter when he bombed the government building You’ve missed the distinction. Civilian buildings’ bombings are terrorism. Military headquarters’ bombings are not. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/71 "2013-01-04T15:37:24Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > “Terror” and “Terrorist” are close, but not exactly the same thing… > > In short, a Terrorist is one who targets civilians as a cheap and easy policy. Governments who attack civilians during a war do it as a rare resource, to bring the war to a close. You are splitting hairs. Whoever said that war is hell…was on point. In every war that has ever been waged, civilians have died as part of the “collateral damage.” From the discussion from above, it looks like the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist is that a Freedom Fighter kills fewer civilians. Is that the only difference? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/72 "2013-01-04T15:47:15Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Is that the only difference? Only if you ignore most of what was posted in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/73 "2013-01-04T15:53:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Only if you ignore most of what was posted in the thread. I’m not ignoring what people have said. I have read it all. I’m just summarizing. It’s okay to kill a few civilians, just not too many. It’s okay to kill a few civilians at Hiroshima as long as you win the war. If you kill too many civilians you will be considered a terrorist. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/74 "2013-01-04T15:54:31Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You’ve missed the distinction. Civilian buildings’ bombings are terrorism. Military headquarters’ bombings are not. No, but I assumed you’d agree central government buildings (The Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Justice and the Police, etc.) as well as powerful people of the ruling elite are legitimate military targets. They certainly would be in a military confrontation. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/75 "2013-01-04T15:56:39Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > No, but I assumed you’d agree central government buildings (The Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Justice and the Police, etc.) as well as powerful people of the ruling elite are legitimate military targets. I don’t agree, no. There is a clear distinction between military and civilian in most governments. In those where the line is blurred, all become military targets. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/76 "2013-01-04T16:00:45Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > In every war that has ever been waged, civilians have died as part of the “collateral damage.” From the discussion from above, it looks like the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist is that a Freedom Fighter kills fewer civilians. > > Is that the only difference? No. A freedom fighter is part of an [irregular](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_warfare) military force, engaged in an asymmetric conflict with a regular military force, pursuant to a resistance movement. Civilians may or may not be killed, as they are in all military engagements. A terrorist uses terror attacks against civilians to force policy changes. Civilians aren’t collateral damage, they are the target. A freedom fighter can become a terrorist, and a terrorist can become a freedom fighter, with a change in tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/77 "2013-01-04T16:02:56Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not ignoring what people have said. I have read it all. I’m just summarizing. It’s okay to kill a few civilians, just not too many. It’s okay to kill a few civilians at Hiroshima as long as you win the war. If you kill too many civilians you will be considered a terrorist. There is a difference between killing civilians as collateral damage in the imprecise world of open warfare, and killing civilians intentionally, or even exclusively, as a political tactic. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/78 "2013-01-04T16:50:58Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > There is a difference between killing civilians as collateral damage in the imprecise world of open warfare, and killing civilians intentionally, or even exclusively, as a political tactic. And I’m saying it is rationalizing and splitting hairs. Without doubt if the U.S. had lost WWII to the Japanese, they would have been considered terrorists. Let’s face it, terrorists do not consider themselves terrorists. I’m not talking about crazy people. I’m talking about people who know the freedoms that they are fighting for, who carefully consider the number of people who die and the means that they will use to carry out their actions. Like President Harry Truman, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/79 "2013-01-04T16:56:53Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > And I’m saying it is rationalizing and splitting hairs. To you it’s rationalizing and hairsplitting, to me the distinction is obvious on its face. > [@pchaos](#): > > Without doubt if the U.S. had lost WWII to the Japanese, they would have been considered terrorists. Perhaps, perhaps not. If so, the Japanese would have been incorrect. > [@pchaos](#): > > Let’s face it, terrorists do not consider themselves terrorists. And evil people don’t consider themselves evil. That doesn’t preclude judgment of their actions. > [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not talking about crazy people. I’m talking about people who know the freedoms that they are fighting for, who carefully consider the number of people who die and the means that they will use to carry out their actions. Like President Harry Truman, for instance. Those decisions determine whether a given act is terrorism or not, yes. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774/80 "2013-01-04T17:01:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > To you it’s rationalizing and hairsplitting, to me the distinction is obvious on its face. > > Perhaps, perhaps not. If so, the Japanese would have been incorrect. > > And evil people don’t consider themselves evil. That doesn’t preclude judgment of their actions. > > Those decisions determine whether a given act is terrorism or not, yes. The Japanese would have been incorrect. You mean they were wrong to have civilians in Hiroshima. All I’m doing is asking you to look at that specific situation. When the U.S. killed Indians because we wanted their land, wasn’t that terrorism? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-a-freedom-fighter-and-a-terrorist/645774.md?page=5)