It all depends whose side they are fighting on. Were the "Minutemen" freedom fighters or terrorists. Was Ben Arnold a traitor or a Loyal officer of the Crown who merely went through a period of temp. insanity. If the Syrian & Iranians who entered Iraq to help drive out the invaders are insurgents, how about LaFayette & the French who came to the assistance of the colonist to drive out the British?
2007-01-09 14:14:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A freedom fighter is a person who by force of arms tries to remove the forces of a government who have invaded its country and removed a democratically elected government of that country. (Note the word democratically). Such as when Germany invaded France and imposed the Vichy government.
A terrorist is a person who by intimidating the population hopes to force that population into denouncing its democratically elected government in favour of one of the terrorists choice.
A freedom fighter is supported by its own population in removing an external government that has been imposed on them. A terrorist is not supported by the majority of its population in achieving its aims.
2007-01-09 04:46:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by frank S 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It all depends whose side you are on and how you want them portrayed.
If the English of the 1700's had to use todays terminology to describe the people who wanted an independant America, what words do you think they would use? They'd call them insurgents, terrorists and fanatics.
Look at how Reagan renamed the contras in the 80's. They were tagged as rebels. It suited his purpose so he described them as freedom fighters.
It all depends on who is in charge and what view the media wants portrayed.
2007-01-09 03:14:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Think.for.your.self 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well if your Bush everyone is a terrorist that opposes the USA or its interests.
But one man terrorist is another man freedom fighter, you have to make up your mind on what side you stand on
2007-01-09 04:38:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by hitan_2005 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
When they are indiscriminate of who they kill if an army is attacked in a battle for freedom ok you can call them freedom fighters. When buses, clubs, restaurants, planes and train are blown up that is a terrorist act
2007-01-09 03:41:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by AndyPandy 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Western Governments seem quick to back freedom fighter and groan when they win!
2007-01-09 03:02:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
anyone with weapons and a willingness to prey on the unarmed population can be seen as a terrorist -- using terror methods to shock the population at large. it's more a tactic than a category.
2007-01-09 03:10:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Super G 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that if we like them, arm or fund them then they are freedom fighters and if we ad the same to who they are against then they are terrorists, as they say one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. its all a crock of crap in the end.
2007-01-09 03:05:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by wang eyed lil 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
It's an irregular English verb:
I am a freedom fighter
You are a terrorist
He's been taken out by a missile fired from a CIA drone.
2007-01-09 03:03:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I guess those idiots you elect decide who's a terrorist or not. You need to understand that if it's not benefiting the government, then it simply can't be tolerated. That is the difference and the only difference. Thank you and GOD bless.
2007-01-09 03:08:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by cookie 6
·
0⤊
3⤋