"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The revolutionary leaders of our country were called terrorists. Civil rights protesters were called terrorists. Anti-war protesters during Vietnam were called terrorists. Isn't the word "terrorism" a convenient term to throw at all enemies of a government be they true terrorists, dissents or freedom fighters?
2006-07-30 16:22:20 · 23 answers · asked by HelloKitty 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, it would depend on who is invading, of course. If it were the Cubans, we would be known as freedom fighters. If it were the Israelis, we would probably be called terrorists. When people want to kill other people, it is sometimes convenient and easier when they pretend they are killing something other than humans. Most people can see through this tactic though. We kill others and we blame them for it, hmmm... very civilized aren't we? We invade them and take their lands at the gun points,... if they resist, we call them provocators and terrorists, we send our troops in there to kill them and then grab some more lands, but we call our actions "defending ourselves". That's the kind of logic people use nowadays to justify just about anything.
2006-07-30 16:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by Mike V 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
History is writte by the winners. Some say Isreal is terrorists for going after Hezbollah. Yeah they have to weaken the Lebanon Infrastructure but that is because the Lebanon Govt is in bed with Hezbollah. The real terrorists are people like Hezbollah who have the intent to KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. They fire rockets/missles into Isreal with the pure intent of killing people. They are firing INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY. You aren't a freedom fighter when you are fighting people who aren't agressors. Next Hezbollah hides among innocent people, using human shields is a war crime BTW, so that innocent people will get killed in the process of fighting Hezbollah. They give the warnings. Now I know you didn't directly use this as an example. It is a perfect example of what a terrorist is though and what makes you a terrorist.
2006-07-30 23:52:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Technically if the person is not a representative of a legitimate government then they are a terrorist by definition. Domestic terrorists might be called by other names, but if the goal is to influence public behavior or political action through fear and violence, or threat of violence....then that person is still a terrorist.
Personally, I think what you have to look at is whether or not the cause is truly noble and in the interest of the betterment of all classes of humanity...not just men or any other group.
2006-07-30 23:31:02 · answer #3 · answered by taters_0 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All the right wing gun owners would sit cowering in their homes, partially because they are all talk and secondly, because if they got up and fought against the invading army, they would be terrorists and we all know how important the war on terrorism is.
Me, on the other hand, I'm a G.O.D. (Gun Owning Democrat) I'd be out there shooting, sniping & bombing the foreign army, much like the I.R.A. is doing in Northern Ireland. Let the right wing call me a terrorist, I'll save their country for them anyway!
Timm1776(below) said
"Terrorist" is not some ambigous term, not to me at least. A terrorist is someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians to affect some political change."
I guess this clearly makes the bush administration Terrorists" Thanks for clearing that up timmy boy!
2006-07-30 23:48:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists kill innocent people to get their message heard. Their message does not have enough power on its own to warrant attention, so they must draw attention to themselves by inflicting harm and pain on others. The civil rights activists who would do sit-ins and other forms of passive resistance ultimately won the fight. That is why Martin Luther King was so wise. This is also what happened with Ghandi and the salt tax. He used the method of passive resistance. When the fight for freedom is pure and true, it will ultimately prevail I believe, like it has in all of the past cases. The terrorists did not win the civil rights movement, the peaceful passive resistors did.
For some other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_resistance
2006-07-30 23:37:29 · answer #5 · answered by Stephanie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've heard this montra...One mans terrorist........so many times in the last week I could puke, who is the liberal mouthpiece you are all quoting, and i don't neccesarily mean the author of it ?
ISRAEL has always been PRO-PEACE...they have been chased around the globe for thousands of years by groups and countries that seek their complete extinction from the face of the earth..this is yet another attempt...The U.S. is the "only" friend they have, and Israel is taking their final stand...they refuse to die, and I for one "LOVE" them for that !!!
Hezbollah knew "EXACTLY" what the Israeli response would be when they kidnapped the two soldiers, and so the Arab terrorists pukes backed by Iran and Syria are getting exactly what they hoped for...Death and destruction
The problem with the Lebonese people is the leadership...exactly the same as the democrat leadership in the U.S.,...promise them the whole enchillada and snatch it away as soon as they get their support.
OH, and...people are getting killed in a war ??...How shocking, whoda thunk it !!!
Hezbollah hides behind kids saying..."you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses on would you?? "
EDDSTER...moron, I said I didn't need the author...everyone spouting this can't possibly know that it was Churchill.
2006-07-30 23:28:27 · answer #6 · answered by rochelle_hall2000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Terrorist" is not some ambigous term, not to me at least. A terrorist is someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians to affect some political change.
So if someone invaded my country, and I responded by killing people that were not part of the occupying force, then I would be a terrorist. If I killed soldiers of the occupying army, then I would not be a terrorist.
Pretty simple, and no moral ambiguity involved.
2006-07-30 23:56:09 · answer #7 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes under the new laws of terrorism!! any freedom fighter is a terrorist. people should bow down to the occupiers or suffer the consequences of being labeled as terrorists.
2006-07-30 23:29:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
civil rights protesteers and anti war protesters were not terrorists, they were protesters. Terrorist kill people, and use terror to win public opinions.
And of course if you are speaking of Iraq it is not ocumpied, they have a legally elected government of thier own
2006-07-30 23:27:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well Tim, if that is the case then I guess the British soldiers that were taken and held prisoner prior to the official declaration of war with England would have meant that the roots of America were based on acts of terriorism.
2006-07-30 23:30:40 · answer #10 · answered by Sonie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋