2 ms·

No it's not. The main difference is that terrorists target civilian population as a means to get what they want, and freedom fighters target military.

• kgwxd 1y ago
  what's it called when military targets civilians to get what they want?
  • rmah 1y ago
    War. It's called war. In ye olden days, military forces pillaged farms (for food) and sacked cities (for loot). Rarely, there have been short eras of formalized military v military conflicts within various cultures, but this was not the norm. In more modern times, military forces destroys enemy infrastructure to degrade their ability to make war directly target civilians to reduce the # of enemies and hurt morale (supposedly). While sad, one of the facts of life is that war leads to civilian deaths. Usually far more than direct military deaths.
    • Ylpertnodi 1y ago
      >While sad, one of the facts of life is that war leads to civilian deaths. Usually far more than direct military deaths. Fair play to the Ukrainian forces who are doing a fantastic job of minimising Civilian deaths. Road map for the future[?]
• prox 1y ago
  Furthermore, a rebellion or freedom fighters in a moral framework is when you have an authoritarian regime, aka “the monster that comes for us all” (Andor S2) that needs to be overcome. An authoritarian regime has no representation of the population, has no need for feedback, and is ruled by a few. In the work of Thomas Payne he says “When all rights have been taken away, the right of rebellion has been made perfect.”
• navigate8310 1y ago
  It's a bad analogy. What if the civilians are themselves perpetuating the regime's views without any sort of independent thinking?
  • tasn 1y ago
    It's not an analogy, it's the dictionary definition.
• Yeul 1y ago
  Name me one war that didn't target civilians...