u are fighting for your cause yet u are called a terrorist?

why does any government (or any media body) calls someone a "terrorist" while fighting for their armed revolution? why do they not refer them as "freedom fighters"?

one example: the western media calls the Karen rebels (Burma)freedom fighters but calls the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front here in the phils.)a terror group? (but the MILF is fighting for the recognition of bangsamoro or islamic state).
(another good example is the P.L.O. or the Palestinian Liberation Organization.)
would you please tell me the answer?

As much as I get your point, it seems society labels one a terrorist, when they go too extreme with their cause. They are willing to kill of millions of people to just prove their cause or cause mass panic and etc... Society sees these kinds of actions as terrorist acts. I myself can't really tell if there is a finite difference or a line that separates one from being a so called "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist". I may have been too brainwashed by the government and what I think now is based on what I'm shown and taught.

It's all in the perception of those who call others terrorist.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines "terrorism" like this:

the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588371/terrorism

It's not unusual to call those with political aims different from your own terrorists while you call those who have a similar goal "freedom fighters".

It's all in the details and which side has the best P.R. standing at home. The P.L.O. was considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel up until the Madrid conference in 93 or 94.

The Karen Rebels are called rebels (I assume) because they are fighting a military junta. Along with this quote from wiki



I can't offer much information on Burma simply because it isn't seen as important over here in the U.S. The best I can do is offer assumption and poorly educated guesses.

Countries often label a group a terrorist organization when they use means of terrorism bombings, kidnapings, etc.

In World War 2 the French Partisans, the Francs-tireurs, French Forces of the Interior among others were considered terrorists by Nazi Germany. It's all about perspective.

For a second i thought the western media is labeling Cougars terrorist then i read the parenthesis lol. But on a serious note you bring a good point. And I don't have the answer sorry.

Quoted for valid point, the people are fed information and "news" that the government wants its people to know about. In other words, you're easily exposed to manipulation and brainwashing if you're not careful, so I'd be clear with myself where it is that I actually stand before making political judgments.

Anyway, there's probably a ton of things we don't know out there simply because the government doesn't feel enlightened to tell. This is my personal opinion, --and I don't watch the news by the way. :3

The label does not root from the motivation but the means used to act upon it.

Having a just cause does not mean every action that you take for such is just.

As for this MILF example, so you are claiming the citizens of your own country do not think theyre terrorists? And that they are not linked to the other group there associated with the international terrorist group responsible for bombings in different countries and actually provide training grounds for other international terrorists? True they claim they are not affiliated, but so you believe that then?

Mujahideen, anyone? XD

Anyways, the short of it is if the group in question has a cause in which we can see any potential profit for our own needs, basically.


I also found it quite difficult to refrain from making any MILF jokes. There's a top-notch hentai story to base off of right there.

MILF=Moro Islamic Liberation Front

i'm serious.

Here's the classic chart:



If you follow Mao's (or anyone else's) recipe, than revolution starts out as terrorism, grows into guerrilla warfare and eventually classical warfare if the insurgents gain power. Keep in mind though, that this is not strictly linear, and the aims of the insurgency can be achieved in any single stage. Also if the insurgents mess up, they may fall back on an earlier stage to regroup and restart.

You're only a revolutionary if you win.

I think terrorism is useless, if you really want change, you need to go for all out war... I think thats from Code Geass though...

I feel that terrorism is the targeting of innocent people on purpose, regardless of which government or political group is doing it.

A terrorist organization is usually a group bent on using fear/violence against a legitimate government and it's people. What's wrong with this is that it's up to the west to determine what is "legitimate." America and her allies will typically designate terrorist status if country or area the group operates in is accepted to be sovereign and legitimate. It's a perpetuation of the ideals of what is correct and proper in civilized society by the West. This is the western conception of what a terrorist is.

Looking at the Karen rebels example - the US and it's allies believe Burma to be quite illegitimate. It's a country ruled by a military junta that suppresses the western conception of democracy. Therefore, we don't mind a group trying to overthrow the government at all.

PLO - In 2004 the United States Congress declared the PLO to be a terrorist organisation under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1987, citing among others the Achille Lauro attack. The US has a special relationship with Israel, and this was especially true during the Bush presidency. So it was natural to say "terrorist," even though the UN has declared the PLO to be an observer and representative of the Palestinian peoples.

When it supports our goals, the US will declare those terrorists to be so. Of course, if you go by a strict interpretation, the USFG could be considered a terrorist...but that's just me :P

While the definition for each term is definitely set, the use of the terms is purely political. Examples:

1) If a group were to attempt a revolution within the United States, the media within the US would be... compelled to use the word "rebels" rather than freedom fighters. Regardless of whether there is freedom of speech or not, calling the group "freedom fighters" is just asking to be arrested for treason. Freedom of speech is more of a privilege rather than a liberty.

2) Calling a group "freedom fighters" within another country is fine and all. However, if that country is actually a valued importer/exporter, political pressure would be placed upon the media to appease the valued trade countries.

3) Similarly, if the rebel group is actually winning and the media's country wants to maintain a good relation, then the said media would be pressured to label the rebels as "freedom fighters" rather than "terrorists."

We can call Al Queda terrorists or freedom fighters all we want. It doesn't change the fact that they're trying to fight for what they believe in even til their deaths. The terms we use merely reflect how people feel about them and how politics wants us to view them. If we get stuck behind definitions, the United States and various other high powered countries are no better than terrorists where they harm innocents to get their points across.

Looking at the United States history: Manifest Destiny, 'nuff said. Teddy Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the bombing in Pearl Harbor, yet allowed it to happen and resulted in many deaths. The government placed the Japanese in concentration camps forcefully during WWII. The two atomic bombs were thrown in the major cities of Japan to end the war, resulting in the death of millions.

In the end, would we call that terrorism? Probably. Do we? Nope. We call those actions ones that were necessary to achieve peace. Does that change the fact that they were terrorist acts? Nope.

As stated above the difference between terrorist and "freedom fighter" is the means to the end. Using terror to achieve your means is a good example; killing civilians for no reason other then to create terror is what terrorism is.

Revolutionaries are people who are truly fighting for what they think is for the good of their country and people. While this is a tough distinction you can usually see from their tactics what kind they are. I don't think that this is 100% accurate its close


Also the more powerful forces media has a lot of part in it; the one whose media is better is gonna get to label the other what every they want and that can be a weapon all by itself.


I'll include this chart just because I like it:

Putting the word "terrorist" sells more papers.