Talk:Freedom fighter

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Country comparisons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  simplify 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Delete lists of (self styled) FF organisations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Freedom Fighters 

message: --58.165.87.175 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----<math>pi r2</math>
is a forumla