2007-08-23 01:31:15 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It depends on what side you're on.
The winners in a conflict have freedom fighters on their side and the losers have terrorists. Sometimes one side call the other side terrorists as a strategy to gain support. During WW2 the French freedom fighters killed many military and civilian targets.
2007-08-23 01:41:59 · answer #1 · answered by rumplestiltskin12357 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A freedom fighter is fighting against a government, and while they might use terrorist tactics, their target is almost always the government or the agents of the government.
A terrorist, however, freely targets civilian targets in order to instill fear in the populace so they can have their way with them. Most are not fighting FOR freedom, but AGAINST freedom. In Iraq, the terrorists are fighting against a democratic government and freedom of the Iraqi people.
There is a vast difference between the two.
2007-08-23 09:06:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some freedom fighters are terrorists, but not all terrorists are freedom fighters.
Freedom fighters directly attack government and military assets in order to change government control in some ways. This may involve terrorist acts.
However, terrorists, such as those we see in Iraq, often attack nonmilitary sources...innocent civilians...including children. In fact, many of the terrorists aren't even Iraqi, so how could they be fighting for the freedom of the country?
2007-08-23 08:42:09 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
" The difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights. For whoever stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists cannot possibly be called terrorists " Yasser Arafat.
Very good question, i think it depends on your personal prejudices, your objectives and your take on what justice is and the tools available to you, in order for you to react.
2007-08-23 09:05:46 · answer #4 · answered by batfood1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists are doing something really bad. Freedom fighters are trying to do something really good.
2007-08-23 08:38:27 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blowing up civilians is not a freedom fighter. It's a chicken poop terrorist. Terrorist is nothing more then heartless murderers using a religion or nation cause to justify their killing.
2007-08-23 08:41:21 · answer #6 · answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
a freedom fighter is just a played-down nicer word to gain sympathy with the public. after all, who would side with a "terrorist " ?
terrorists are a bunch of sad *** arab scumbags who cowardly attack innocent civilians (women and children).
2007-08-23 08:51:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A "freedom fighter" wouldn't consider targeting innocent civilians
2007-08-23 08:38:05 · answer #8 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
they're spelled differently. otherwise, we support freedom fighters and are allegedly fighting against terrorists.
if someone is pointing his ak47 at you, he's a terrorist. if he's pointing it at a target you approve of, he's a freedom fighter.
case in point: when geo bush senior first hired osama bin ladin to organize mujahadeen against the soviet army he was considered a freedom fighter, later, when he started pointing at us troops, facilities, and allies he became a terrorist.
2007-08-23 08:38:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Depends on your political point of view.
Members of al-Qaida are terrorists towards the US, but if you are a liberal, they are called freedom fighters!
2007-08-23 08:43:35 · answer #10 · answered by elmar66 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋