2006-09-13 08:39:01 · 17 answers · asked by mutterhals 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
In reality, there is none. The resistance to the British before the American War of Independence could be called terrorism by today's definition of the term. So, the difference is solely which side you are on--and who wins the fight. The victors write the history books.
2006-09-13 09:11:16 · answer #1 · answered by functionary01 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists never really win so they are not accepted by society's standards. Freedom fighters or revolutionary fighters eventually win and are lauded for this, a la george washington.
But the main difference is that freedom fighters tend to enjoy burning american flags on tv while terrorists like to show off their ak-47 on tv. =)
2006-09-13 15:42:12 · answer #2 · answered by La Voce 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists are a group of people with one purpose....to
hunt down and kill anyone for no particular reason except
to wipe "different" people off the face of the earth. Their
own citizens have no freedoms and face being beheaded
and thrown into huge pits to get rid of the bodies by these
terrorists. They also torture those they capture by cutting
off fingers, cutting out tongues and eyes, then arms and
legs, and finally their heads.
Freedom fighters will fight others who try to kill innocent
citizens for no good reason. AMerica has freedom to live
as we want. It's worth fighting for. Those captured are put
in jail, fed good food, have health care, and then are entitled
to a trial (like Saddam). They could be jailed or freed, depending
upon the outcome of the trial. Their body parts are never
chopped off digit at a time as terrorists treat their captured.
I hope you can see the difference here as it is enormous.
2006-09-13 15:56:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Simple test.
Are they attacking an occupying force that has taken over their homeland or taken control of their government?
Or are they attacking innocent people in some other country for the purpose of harassing and disrupting the lives of those other people?
I don't believe you can be realistically called a freedom fighter if you are not fighting for your own freedom.
2006-09-13 15:43:37 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
U could argue with the fact that it all depends on perception n whose side u r on to diffrentiate b/w them but they have a few glaring differences...
Freedom fighters have more popular support n people wo they r fighting against r mostly believed to bad y a much broader audience
But the most imp. point is that FF do not kill innocent people n their tactics havve a well defined meaning behind them but terrorist attacks r always on innocent civilians with a motive to "scare" to make their presence felt n using the fear to drive the enemy out.
2006-09-13 16:38:03 · answer #5 · answered by Liberal 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A terrorist kills innocent people purposely and a freedom fighter makes every attempt to kill just the people in the opposing camp.
2006-09-13 16:15:18 · answer #6 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a freedom fighter probably has a country or cause to fight for. a terrorist usually has no country or any ideas that is why they are toast.
2006-09-13 15:43:01 · answer #7 · answered by maton_purple 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The tactics they use will define if they are "freedom fighters" or terrorists.
2006-09-13 15:40:51 · answer #8 · answered by armywifetp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom fighters fight...for...freedom. Terrorists fight to gain control and push their extremest views.
2006-09-13 15:51:54 · answer #9 · answered by Chris J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are they fighting to free their people from an oppressive Government?
If you look at Iraq & Afghanistan, the terrorists there are fighting to put an oppressive Government (Taliban) in place, not remove one.
2006-09-13 15:48:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋