There is no difference. Look up the definition of the word euphemism.
No he was a freedom fighter
a terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
are you serious? well if you've learnt at school Gandhi is far from a terrorists in fact he was killed by an extremist, but to answer you question, he was a freedom -fighter
Krantikari
He would be either a terrorist or a freedom-fighter, depending whether you were on his side.
He was a filipino freedom fighter
yes, he is freedom fighter
yes.he was a freedom fighter.
He was a freedom fighter to his people.
It all depends on particular points of view. As they say: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Generally speaking, these days, it's "Terrorism". Of course it's well known that one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter. Who is the judge?
While the obvious answer is "they fight for freedom," this is actually a complicated question. Depending on what side you are on, a person might consider you a freedom fighter, or if they oppose you, they might consider you a traitor or a terrorist. "Freedom fighter" is thus a very controversial term. In some countries, those who fight to defeat an unjust or cruel government are considered freedom fighters; historically, many popular uprisings that led to reform in a country were spearheaded by "freedom fighters." But the term has also been used in a very different way: Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda thought of themselves as freedom fighters, since they wanted to defeat western governments they regarded as enemies of traditional Islam. This is not to say that Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter: most people, including many Muslims, would say he was a terrorist, because his methods killed many innocent people. But the point is that the term "freedom fighter" is very subjective, depending on who is using it. Ideally, it refers to those who fight against an unjust regime. But it has also been used by extremists who distort its original meaning.