Talk:Freedom fighter

Biased

As far as i know. The term is generally used by americans in a positive :) sense to refer to the intelligence agents operating in puerto rico to counter the revolution. Correct me if i'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.179.94 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that is an extremely narrow usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.170.229 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Freedom Fighters Manual

The page, should it include info about the US-sponsored The Freedom Fighter's Manual?

Hamas

The article says that its relativistic and then (ostensibly as an example) uses it to describe Hamas. Ridiculous and must be addressed quickly. Noone would stand for it if it was "the Mossad (a terrorist organization) claims to fight for the freedom of Israel to exist". Totally POV and completely inappropriate. Ill wait a few days and if I dont get a response Ill remove that unneccessary example.

Done

I just deleted the part about hamas, only to come into the discussion board and find that i wasnt the first to have done this. I totally agree that specific examples of who is and isnt a freedom fighter/terrorist has no place in this article and i ask everyone who's reading this to try and keep it free of such blatant POV.

What about Samuel Adams? --Cyberman 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't know, but I suspect that the dictionary.com definition is an example of hidden bias--not explaining the background. I could be wrong, but I believe (though I have not done any real resarch) that freedom fighter is a Cold War term. --The Cunctator

---

I thought a freedom fighter was someone who fights for freedom--call me silly...  :-) Maybe we shouldn't be satisfied with dictionary-definition length entries about complex topics. Obviously, unless somebody just knows this, we're going to have to research exactly who used the term first, how and why it was used, who used it, etc. --Larry Sanger

Sure they fight for freedom. Freedom from domination by those particular leaders. There have been few if any figures in history who wanted freedom for all people from all domination. Gandhi and maybe MLK come to mind, seems like Malcolm X was headed that way when he died. Arguably some of the U.S. founding fathers wanted this, but were obviously willing to compromise. Gautama Buddha is another good guess. Seems like those who want complete freedom for all often renounce violence. --JohnAbbe

---

Looking good--I'm just going to reduce some of the circumlocution. For example, by stating that something is a propagandistic term, we don't also have to say that it's not used in a careful, precise way. That's what it means to be propagandistic. --The Cunctator

---

George Carlin has the perfect definition, in form of a question: "If crimefighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" ;) --Magnus Manske

---

Here's what the OED says:

• 15. ... freedom fighter, one who takes part in a resistance movement against the established political system of a country ....
• ...
• 1942 J. LEHMANN 40 Poems 32 Their freedom-fighters staining red the snow. 1958 Listener 13 Nov. 786/1 The Hungarian ?freedom fighters?. 1962 Listener 20 Dec. 1042/2 The Information Minister [in Jakarta] had urged the press to support the freedom fighters in northern Borneo. 1964 Ann. Reg. 1963 113 Mr. Obote had played a prominent part in the Addis Ababa conference..offering training grounds for ?freedom fighters? against South Africa. 1969 Daily Nation (Nairobi) 31 Oct. 16/1 Freedom fighters ring Portuguese territories and Rhodesia with the support of African governments, if not always full acknowledgement. 1969 M. PUGH Last Place Left vii. 45 She was a freedom fighter in the sex war.

---

All right. I'm asserting that

A freedom fighter is a positive term for a political rebel who uses violence to attempt the overthrow of the established government. With its use of the positive term freedom, this term is subjective and propagandistic, implying that the established government is oppressive and illegitimate.

means the same thing as

A freedom fighter is, literally, a person who fights for freedom in a particular place. But, due to the ambiguity of and disagreements over the meaning of the term "freedom," the literal meaning of the term is not particularly helpful. The term has been used and spread in propaganda, and as a result it has usually not been used in any very careful, precise way. It is probably most accurate to say that a freedom fighter is a political rebel who uses violence to attempt the overthrow of an established government considered, by the person using the "freedom fighter" label, illegitimate because it is oppressive of (that person's conception of) freedom.

but is much more concise and correctly emphasized. I believe that it is correct for the entry to begin with the definition of the term, not a literal parsing of the words.

I totally disagree, which is exactly why I changed it back. The clearest, most straightforward way to present the meaning of the term is to explain first its literal meaning and then tie that in with how those words, literally understood, are used. I think your approach is, if briefer, far less clear.

I feel very strongly about this. I have spent most of my academic life writing with the aim of making ideas as clear as possible, and I think I know how it's done. I'll keep arguing with you about it, if you like.

---

While your text is more detailed, Larry, I do think that it is awkward and repetitive, and doesn't really convey much more than the shorter version. But we are not paper here, so I agree with you that it's more important to be precise than concise. I'll see if I can clarify it. --Lee Daniel Crocker

That was not an improvement, Lee, in terms of clarity. I'll wait until tomorrow before I touch the article again, though. --LMS

Really? I must disagree that my version isn't clearer--it's much clearer. The way I read it, it says exactly the same thing your version does, but more simply and precisely --LDC

It's really very simple, Lee. Your version simply doesn't say everything that does need to be said about the term, and mine does. The things your definition does not say explicitly, which mine does, are things that I think need to be stated explicitly. I'm going to restore it and rewrite it slightly, unless someone can convince me otherwise. --LMS

---

Well, I'm throwing my hat in the ring. I really think I said everything Larry wanted said, without the awkward (to non-philosophers) talk about literal meanings, and semantic imprecision. MRC

---

Hi Mark, that strikes me as a good resolution. Thanks! --LMS

---

I like MRC's version, and if you do as well I suppose we're settled. It says the same things but with less philosopher-speak. But you're still just blowing smoke up my ass unless you say what it is, specifically, that is expressed by your version or his that wasn't in mine, and your meaningless statement above is just more evidence. I'm sure you really do understand something I don't here--you're the better philosopher--but you're not making it clear. I'm a writer. I good at making things clear, but I have to understand them first. –LDC

---

As I see it Larry thinks it is important to at least point out that 1) Freedom Fighter is a politically loaded term, 2) the literal meaning and the actual use are somewhat divergent, and 3) the standard "a political rebel who uses violence to attempt the overthrow of the established government" is not a precise logical definition, but is merely an indicator of common use.

I'm reading a bit between the lines in Larry's paragraph to get this, so some of it may reflect my own bias. However, I think it is essential that we do point out these things. In particular I think it is essential to point out the subjectivity involved in many definitions of freedom and oppression, and to make it clear that we are relying on common use to arrive at the aforementioned definition. I personally would also like to make a much stronger point about the political doublespeak and propagandistic uses of rhetoric which surround the use of this label, but I purposely moved that to the end of the article to improve the flow, in spite of my feeling that it is more important than some of the stuff about the cold war which precedes it.

I think it's essential that at least some hint of the subjective and ambiguous nature of the term be provided in the first paragraph. I also agree with KQ and The Cunctator that it is essential that we make the standard definition as central as possible. Balancing all of these concerns is not a simple process, but I think we're in far better shape than we were yesterday.

---

Larry's edit of Mark's text was good; your edit may have been a bit more complete but it was confusing, so I rearranged it and I think clarified. Also, Larry's "an often propagandistic term" is far superior to your "a propagandistic term", because the latter is non-neutral; it expresses the opinion that use of the term is always propaganda, which is not true. It is true that terms like "freedom" and "oppression" are ambiguous, but they do have real meanings and real examples, and the term can be used in a straigtforward and meaningful way. Finally, I deleted the links to dictionary articles. I don't think such links are a good idea for Wikipedia in general--the reason we put an article here is because we have more to say about it than a mere dictionary entry. I might be convinced otherwise. --LDC

---

Did the Soviet Union ever call the Sandinistas "freedom fighters"? If not, I don't think it's quite accurate to say what the article says right now. –LMS

---

The mention of "guerrillas" as a negative term is incorrect, at least historically. Most of the Marxist revolutionaries in the Cold-War era used that term to describe themselves, including Che Guevara and Vo Nguyen Giap, who both wrote about using guerrilla tactics. We've got this set of loose synonyms: rebel, freedom fighter, guerrilla, terrorist, and revolutionary. (Maybe you can think of more...) And then there's activist, protester, marcher, hippie.... --The Cunctator

---

If you are looking for a non biased way of defining a freedom fighter, then I think that two elments should be distinguished in this expression. Freedom, which is definitely good, and fight, ie the way a freedom fighter pursues his political aims and freedom. If the fight is violent (the espression non violent fight or nonviolent struggle could be seen as metaphores), then the authorities do have the right to bring those responsible to trial for their violent acts; the authorities have not the right to have those same people stand in trial also for their opinions, which is often he case instead. This means that someone may be right, even if his ways are not, and that our judgement on violence should not influence our judgement on anyone's opinions. Those are two separate accounts which should stay separate. One is not there to balance the other.

---

Hamas are definetley freedom fighters as they fight to free their country from the ZionistsKermanshahi 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Country comparisons

It would seem inappropriate to lump together the savage, Maoist Sendero Luminoso of Peru and the socially concerned, if authoritarian, Nicaraguan Sandinistas; the same goes for the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian rebels v.s. the Afghan Mujahadeen.

This sentence implies that Hungarian anc Czech rebels were savage and the Mujahedeen are socially concerned, while I am pretty sure that the author originally meant to say the opposite. (Or if he didn't, then he ought to.) This should be reformulated somehow... - Marcika 21:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the Sudtiroler freedom fighting heroes should be mentioned on here aswell.

I think the page as it stands seems pretty balanced. I don't know what the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is. Freedom fighter seems to be what people who favor the terrrorist's aims call him or her. Terrorist is what people call those whose aims they disagree with. Both are militant groups fighting for an aim, whether that is shooting at British troop from behind trees, dumping tea in a harbor, or taking down the Challenger space shuttle.

I think that the above opinion says it best. The Americans supported the Mujahdeens'holy war{Taliban} as "Freedom Fighters" when they were fighting the Soviets.Oh the irony of it all. Freedom fighter or Terrorist,its all semantics.

simplify

A freedom fighter is a terrorist on your side. A terrorist is a freedom fighter on the other side. Does it really need to be more complex?

Yes, considering that the definition of freedom fighters implies that they are attacking their own governments and not someone else's -- terrorism is a method, not a political goal. I hope. It is also thoroughly unfair to freedom fighters to automatically assume they use the methods of terrorism. Many freedom fighters -- like the French Resistance, for instance -- engaged in strategic guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. While some freedom fighters may use terroristic methods, that doesn't mean all of them do.

On the other hand, in what way were the 9/11 terrorists engaging in freedom fighting? Most of them were not Americans, making them instead foreign hostiles. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist who might possibly be considered a freedom fighter; he was, shamefully, an American. My point: there is a really big difference, despite the way the media tosses the terms around as if they were equivalent.

But my question is, why is so much of the verbiage in this article made up of questions? I thought wiki was supposed to be straightforward statements defining something, not rhetorical and argumentative questions.

"freedom fighters implies that they are attacking their own governments and not someone else's" -- so by that definition everything the US did in Vietnam, Iraq, etc., are terrorist activities, and definitely everything Israel does to the Arabs. Pseudotriton 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, going by the above definition, none of the "home grown" terrorists, such as those UK Musilims plotting to bomb planes can be called terrorists anymore. The distinction between the two terms, as the article points out, is relative. Pseudotriton 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of the name of this section, terrorism is, simply, a tactic whereby a state of terror is induced in a group of people. This is true independent of the reason for employing the tactic. So, comparing the phrases "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is like comparing apples and oranges -- what is the point? Certainly, they are not universally interchangeable, but that does not prevent apologists from doing so in an attempt to legitimize the tactic, which is indefensible. Eegorr 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting

There has been no discussion on the talk page for weeks and weeks and weeks. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

phrasing & historical confusion

"This was particularly true in Nicaragua, where the US government was inclined to a favorable view of the Sandinista movement until some time after it accumulated power, when it backed the Contra rebels."

The two "it"s in the sentence are confusing.

The second is gramatically incorrect, since while it apparently refers to the "US government", gramatically it does not.

Perhaps:

"This was particularly true in Nicaragua, where the US government was inclined to a favorable view of the Sandinistas until some time after their accumulation of power, when the US came to back the Contra rebels."

However this still leaves the historical problem that it was more a question of the change in US president that changed US attitudes - the new president had already been pro-Somoza before.

The second historical hesitation I have is that the Contras were basically created by the US government, as has been admitted on the BBC by the CIA officer responsible for the program.

David Vaughn

---

I think this is a rather good article on wikipedia. I have given in some neccesary changes in the 'examples' section, and the rest of it, well, I couldn't find anything wich aint right, or wrong. Please read my articles:

• Lone Horn
• Touch the Clouds

Oh, en Please rate them, or expand them, their both stubs!

Mrlob

---

Hey. I definitely think that this is a biased article. Seeing as I am currently researching the Arab-Israeli conflict, simply calling the Hamas a terrorist group is definetly discrimatory,biased, and very politically incorrect. Not that I am one to be politically correct. Palestinians definitely have a right to be angry. -Me

Delete lists of (self styled) FF organisations

This is inevitably a POV list that adds no value to the article. I propose that it be deleted outright. --Red King 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a seperate article like the one for List of terrorist organisations would be better. This list could get very long. IP198 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. That article is even more POV and should be deleted too. It is purely subjective. --Red King 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, but i doubt that we will be able to delete that article. Perhaps an afd should be done on List of terrorist organisations, and if it works then this list should go as well. IP198 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As no one has made a case for its retention, I have deleted the list. Any reinstatement is subject to the standard rules of wikipedia: WP:No original research and WP:Cite sources - and any source has to be independent of the warring parties and their allies. --Red King 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Freedom Fighters

was a (IIRC) made-for-TV movie that involved the Berlin Wall and a GI stationed in Berlin back in 1961, starring Tony Danza. This is not addressed. -Ich (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

                        dumb left wing crap... again
       i deleted a segment some parinoid 'wanna be' hippie wrote about the Bush term of goverment so that hopefully wont be coming back! j.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.225.20 (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 

Moral question

With all the respect to the contributors, in my humble opinion the words "freedom fighter" have a strong political meaning that tend to confuse the public opinion by apealing to emotions. In some cases, legitimite in the eyes of the public, the violation of law and order by the use of violence, implies that the ends justify the means. To talk about freedom fighters and not talk about the moral questions that come from the term is to give un incomplete picture of the words. I believe that is better to explain the discussion than avoid it at all. I think that the purpose of this is to provide more info, even if only creates more questions. This is because through making more questions, we get new answers. Or so I think.

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----$pir2$is a forumla

--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)