Freedom fighter

For the DC Comics superhero team, see Freedom Fighters (comics). For the video game by IO Interactive, see Freedom Fighters (video game).

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established organization that is thought to be oppressive. The terms "freedom" and "rebellion" are often confusing, as often both sides in armed conflict claim to represent the popular cause of "freedom". While external intervening parties, even oppressors, almost always claim to be "liberators", 'freedom fighters' also often become oppressors in the eyes of civilians.

Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, common use is restricted to those who are actively involved in an armed rebellion, rather than those who "fight" for freedom by peaceful non disturbive means (though they may use the title in its literal sense).

Confusion between terrorists and freedom fighters has become a hot topic in today's society. There is no universally agreed-upon definition for "terrorist" and many organizations that commit acts of terrorism (such as Hamas's suicide bombings) take offense to the term and say that they are freedom fighters. Others strongly maintain that "freedom fighter" is a whitewashed term for "terrorist".

1 Terminology
2 Media reporting
3 Self-described "Freedom Fighters"
4 Other Examples of "Freedom Fighters"
5 See also
6 External links
7 Categories

Terminology

"Freedom fighter" is a loaded term. People who are self-described "freedom fighters" tend to be called assassins, rebels, or terrorists by their foes. Hence the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". During the Cold War, the term 'freedom fighter' was widely used by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional mujahideen in Afghanistan. However, 'rebels' of the same nature in modern day Iraq are labeled as insurgents by the same United States.

The term freedom fighter, while indicating favor of some political group, often does not reflect any actual political position of those fighting — central to this is a dispute over the meaning of freedom itself and whether a group in question can be said to actually fight for the purpose of establishing freedom. 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. Of all political labels, freedom fighter is perhaps the most blunt term for "friend" — some think that it signals an unwillingness to abandon moral support regardless of methods, an unbreakable alliance between players, perhaps even proxies in an unconventional war.

The ambiguity of the term freedom makes the use of the label freedom fighter particularly useful for propaganda purposes. It is relatively simple to show that the "enemy" has done something which violates one of the many possible meanings of the word freedom, which allows the propagandist to appear to take the moral high ground by fighting for the cause of freedom. In addition to this, propagandists commonly use virtue words like "freedom", "social justice", "liberation", and "helping the poor", which tend to evoke positive images in the target audience in order to attach those images and feelings to his cause.

Media reporting

Certain media agencies, notably the BBC and Reuters, except in attributed quotes, refuse to use the phrase "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", in favour of neutral terms such as "militant", "guerrilla", "assassin", paramilitary or militia to avoid the editorialising implicit in the use of such words.

(However the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s, when reporting on the Troubles in Northern Ireland, did refer to the Provisional Irish Republican Army as terrorists, while referring to members of loyalist armed groups such as the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force, who employed identical tactics, as "paramilitaries". They continued to use neutral terminology of other "insurgent" conflicts around the world).