terrorists and "freedom fighters"...what is the different?

There isn't, it only depends on who's side you are on at the time.

Interesting its true - a terrorist is a terrorist and that is that. The freedom fighter is a romantic notion; that there is a noble group of folk fighting a dark force that has no understanding or reason - maybe in very extreme situations that could be validated - like against the brutalities of the Nazis, or the oppression of the Apartheid system, but in reality its nonsense. The line is blurred when said terrorist is against a nation say many detest - like Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa. There are classic example of oppression and many believe that supporting people fighting this sort of control - is fighting for freedom. Problem is that this is often applied to other nations and systems that some may regard as "oppressive", "threatening", or against their beliefs - and need to be freed. The greatest culprits of funding such folk are the Americans - usually because they have a misguided belief that they think they are liberating people, by supporting these monsters or as a way to hit an enemy power they hated without actual invasion or all out war - examples are the funding of the Mujaheddin who later became the Taliban in a hope to hurt Russia during their Afghan crisis, the IRA who stupid yanks regard as "brothers" being oppressed by the british like in a red coat sort of way, or anyone south of their border in the latin half ot the Americas. By doing that two things do take place - first you breed more resentment in those places - often against the very people who are funding these terrorists creating terrorists to attack the suppliers, thus the situation becomes worse - and second those supported terrorists will inevitably turn on the very people who funded them because they expect things to go their way. A great example is the Taliban and Al-Quaida. Before 9/11, the US funded all sorts of freedom groups and terrorist factions around the world in the misguided belief that this will lead to peace and democracy - after 9/11, they would not dare fund anyone because of the brutal hypocracy leveled at them. It is true what you have pointed out - those that wage war against civilians are terrorists, and there is a point about Mandela. He however was suppressed for being black - something he has no power over, and to some point if you do not fight back things never change or you get killed. Where people do not listen you make them listen. However, like with the good Friday agreement, a price for peace has to be payed. He brought the country together, and the bloodshed from his release was almost non-existant. As a result, the terrorism died out - not because the terrorists won, but because the people chose the best course available. What was the alternative? More violence? sometimes the best option is not the most moral.

The essential difference is found in what comes after the war and what the victor does following the victory.

In the Russian-Afghanistan conflict of the 80's, a lot of the resistance to Soviet domination were called "freedom fighters" because they were fighting against the Soviets. However, after the Soviets withdrew, it would be difficult to ascribe the term freedom to what happened under the Taliban.

In many instances, so called freedom fighters are merely fighting over the power to dominate.

If the "resistance" in Iraq, who are by some referred to as freedom fighters, become victorious, I don't believe "freedom" is what Iraq will have.

There is a huge difference.

A freedom fighter fights for... FREEDOM.

A terrorist fights to make others submit to their will.

For example. Osama Bin Laden is not a freedom fighter. He is not fighting to expand freedom for his people or to relieve them from oppression. He fights to expand his power and to impose Sharia Law and his ideology on the people. He is an oppressor.

Under the Geneva Conventions, there are three recognized combat forces of a nation.

1. Regular troops. What we tend to call "active duty."

2 Reserve troops. What we call the National Guard and Reserve.

3. Levee En masse. This is like the French in WW II. The people within an occupied nation rose up to drive out an invader.

To be any of the three, the national authorities must have command and control over you. You can not just go say "I am a freedom fighter" and start shooting at the occupying troops.... Also, you have to fight the occupying army, not your own people.. As with the French, you blow up German stuff, not your own people, not your own factories, not your own bridges. Lastly, you have to follow the rules of the Conventions.

If the people of iraq, under the command and control of their government were fighting the Americans to drive them out, they would be levee en masse and true freedom fighters. But what we see in Iraq are are people from Iran and other nations coming in and not only shooting at Americans, they shoot at Iraqis. These people are not under the command and control of the Iraqi government and in fact they attack the Iraqs as much as Americans. They are terrorists as they do not meet the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, they go out of their way to break the Conventions.

Hope this clears it all up for you.

A terrorist doesn't care who or what they destroy.

A freedom fighter has a specific plan & a silent army of supporters to get the job done with the least amount of lives lost in the battle as possible. They are more quiet about their cause. Terrorists are loud & make a mess for everyone....that's my personal view of the 2!

Terrorists attack the population of a country. Freedom fighters attack the government. For example, 9/11 was a terrorist attack because it was done by people from another country against our people, not our government.

Fidel Castro and his people (way back in the 50's) were freedom fighters because they fought their own government troops to overthrow it.

Neither is all bad or all good obviously.

Umm a big difference. Terrorists are the people setting up the NWO (new world order) and wanting us to be there slaves. Freedom fighters are people that fight for there rights and try to destroy the NWO crooks.

freedom fighters is what the attackers call themselves and terrorists is what the attacked call those same people.

Freedom fighters are usually fighting for their homes, self determination and liberty directed at political leadership and their military usually in defense of their homeland.

Terrorists fight an ideological war of hate sometimes based on religion or race and are more oppressive than those they attack. There are no rules of engagement and its open season on everyone killing non combatants in a form of unrestricted warfare with no boundaries or borders.

Well, it's open to interpretation. It depends on which side you're on. Many of what are called "Terrorists" today have a cause that, at one point, is or was noble, albeit they go about it with a manner that is unacceptable. Terrorists are those who just want to cause fear in people, for no reason other than mere whim.

What people call terrorism today is usually called so because of short-sighted populace, unable to see anything from the other side's point of view.