To: Lane3 who wrote (113 ) 3/4/2005 9:19:51 PM From: one_less Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 777 Freedom Fighter: This term is particularly enmeshed with contradictory political connotations. The term ‘Freedom Fighter’ has been used to identify people who are honestly fighting against tyranny being perpetrated on or against the liberty of others, and it has been used to identify people who are terrorizing others in order to benefit materially. Seeking to expand your social influence or control over real estate does not qualify you, in and of itself, as a person who is fighting for freedom. The term ‘freedom’ specifically regards that which, as a noble human attribute of liberty, cannot be severed, surrendered, transferred, or alienated from the person in any way. Lack of freedom could only be qualified, therefore, by the identification of coercive activity designed to suppress or oppress the nobility of a person or persons. Obviously denying someone the right to life or liberty qualifies, as does the denial of their pursuits to live a noble life. (Note: I find the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ to be too vague for practical use). To further your discussion you must cut through the code speak related to the term ‘Freedom Fighter’ and return to clear and tangible meanings. Freedom occurs when noble human beings are at liberty to pursue a noble life. Noble human beings are obligated to stand against any form of social injustice which would deny a noble life. Social injustice occurs when there is a violation perpetrated against a noble human being which is caused by the coercive activity of a third party. Any form of standing against social injustice is an act of fighting for freedom, starting with firming your heart against the injustice and following the continuum to and including combat, when necessary. Though the stand may be justified, the activity of the person making the stand must be weighed by the same standard.