Do we, (the West) have to re-define our very simplistic concept of what constitutes a 'terrorist'?

Question

From my point of view, many so-called 'terrorists' are in reality 'freedom fighters'. And some so-called 'civilised' countries are acting more like 'terrorists' than the 'terrorists' themselves.
Any comments?

PerfectPrincess: Are you sure your husband is going to Iraq? If I were him I would dream up any excuse to get away from you. You have a foul mouth, lady.
I see we have many 'simplistic views'
'If you are not with us, you are against us' GWB
I am not a American, (Thank G*d!)so please don't tell me to leave your lunatic country, amd I don't want to come there either. Do you think the 'West' is only the US? This is your problem, you guys think the US is the world. Wake up!

Answer 1

I seriously agree with you. How can you call a man who is trying to protect his country's rights a terrorist. The people who fought and died for their country's freedom were always called terrorists by the aggressors. But are now remembered as heroes and honoured by their own people. Remember as long as there is aggression there will be resistance. Always. No matter what you call it.

Answer 2

Personally, the only definition of "Terrorist" which should pertain is, "Any person or organization which attempts to effect political change through the use of random force, where no quarter is given to civilians or children in the use of that force and where no Declaration of War has been declared and implemented".

The animals who flew into the World Trade Center were indeed terrorists. Countries which declare their intentions to invade beforehand then follow through on that threat are not. While I don't agree with the Iraqi invasion, the reasons for which were spurious, the US DID warn Saddam if he continued to behave as a terrorist, he would be deposed. He was given chance after chance after chance to reform and become part of the civilized world. He refused, so he got invaded. The WTC and the Pentagon were given no such warning.

George Carlin has a great bit about so-called "Freedom Fighters". I'm paraphrasing but it basically goes, "If firefighters, fight fires, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedon fighters fight?" So tags such as "freedom fighter" or "revolutionary" don't really automatically make me think of a downtrodden people fighting to win freedom from a repressive society. Usually (especially currently) it's an organization which wants to take over in order to make their society even MORE repressive.

So no, I dont believe our "simplistic" concept of what constitutes a terrorist needs to be redefined. But this is a good question, thank you for asking it.

Answer 3

Terrorist, freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel, liberator, who determins who is who is who controls the media and who is has the most might, and who is standing when the dust settles. Imagine you hear a story in the news. A group of people by cover of night. Board the vessel of the government. Seize the crew, take the cargo of the government and distroy it. And they plant evidence, and use diguises to make it look like it was the ethnic people of the land that did it. What would you call them? Most would say terrorist, and at least criminals. Right? Now, lets break it down! This was Boston harbor. The terrorist fighting against the sitting government of the day, The Crown of England, today are called PATRIOTS. They were not patriots to England. They were terrorist and insurgents. Much is said about terrorist today being cowards because they are not dumb enough to try to go up against Bradley Fighting vehicles, armored humvees, tanks and jets flying so high and fast they can not be touched. That would be about as dumb as someone stepping into the ring to fight Mike Tyson in his prime when they have no experience, given 30 ounce gloves, and ankles weights while he has on head gear, padded girdle, and given 10 ounce gloves. Getting your *** kicked to prove a point that you can meet someone heads up ain't bravery, that is just plain stupid. That is why the so-call PATRIOTS, did not sneak on the Brittish ship as themselves, towns people. They tried to pass the buck of the attack and tea dumping on the 1st Nation people who were here.

If some one wanted to come to America and install a government they felt was better, universal health car for all, free education at all levels for those smart enough, fully funding cancer and aids resurch as well as solar power, the homeless off the street. fair and even taxes, guarenteed retirement for all, specially veterans etc. And they developed EMP based weapons that would render the teeth of US attack and defence systems to large paper weight. If your neighbor thought what these other people were bringing was better and helped them. Wonder was most people would think of them? Are they helping the liberators create a better America, or are they traitors helping a foregin government take hold of America?

Answer 4

Someone above made a very good statement: "A terrorist is an individual who kills mercilessly in attempts to push their ideals, bring harm, basically their actions stem from extremist views and discontentment... a civilian is simply a native of a country, nation, they belong to a political body and structure in other words. Terrorists are freedom fighters in the fact they're fighting for what THEY consider freedoms... so, yes, I agree with you in that aspect, they are freedom fighters. Bin Laden unfortunately (really it's delusionally) more than likely believed his actions were legitimate and fundamental to his practices, whatever they may be. A "civilized" country is really a paradox: never will there be a country who's actions are completely perfect, flawless, always adhering to the rule of order, etc. And yes, ironically, individuals who consider themselves "civilized" pursue means and act in ways which is highly contradictory with this belief. The bottom line is: our Western view of terrorists has already evolved immensely since the 9/11 attacks (since when, as a nation, were we so concerned about terrorists? The term "terrorist" has become interchangable with daily lingo now, used more frequently as a negative connotation) and will continue to. The concept of terrorism is so controversial for many as it is an emotional topic, I personally think our views initially of what constitues a terrorist are very shallow yet broad in that terrorism is so expansive, terrorists don't only have to be concerned with international or world power, it's more like the idea of infringing beliefs upon someone violently and physically.. in this aspect terrorists aren't "admirable" freedom fighters. Some will argue they aren't freedom fighters whatsoever because the very term itself "freedom fighter" is a positive, search for justice type of title given to individuals who battle fairly and honestly, most unlike terrorists. Nonetheless, terrorists fight for their freedoms: freedoms and beliefs, as most of the U.S. will probably agree, shouldn't be fought for in such a disgusting and harmful manner sometimes. Continue the questioning- this one was good.

Answer 5

Yes. If you look closely, it wasn't al-queda who blew up the trade towers, it was carefully placed C-4. Look into the facts behind 9-11 and you will find that your own government is the real terrorist. Although, anyone who kills innocent people really is a Terrorist.

Answer 6

terrorists are cowards that do not display their uniform which is against the Geneva convention.
they hide in civilian areas behind the human shields that are their families and friends.
they plot to destroy as many non military targets as possible...

i believe the term terrorist does not need redefinition... the way we deal with them does..

if you were found to of breached the geneva convention during the second world war you were shot, no messing. so i propose any terrorists found should not be given any human rights, and shot.

thanks for asking.

Answer 7

You are an idiot . . .

Terrorists are trying to kill and and all Americans and other Westerner's, including innocent people. Most terrorist attacks are designed specifically to kill innocent civillians.

Americans and other Westerner's never want to kill civillians and are extremely upset when it happens. Terrorists take pride in doing so and brag about it on the internet and otehr Arab news outlets.

If they were trully freedom fighters, they would not be making plans to blow up airplanes, subways, or buildings with innocent civilians in them.

Answer 8

Not really, a terrorists kills civilians for press coverage, new recruits, and to exert political pressure. Nations kill civilians generally by accident, if they do target them it is because they were supporters of the enemy. The IRA is just as bad as Al Queda or Hezbollah though.

Answer 9

firstly good luck to perfect princess and thank you to her husband for defending freedom.
i have plenty of views but i cant write them on here because id be kicked off.
people like you have no idea,no purpose no principles.
have you ever killed anyone or been shot at.
terrorist-people who cause terror ie fear frightend of or about.9/11 and the london bombings which killed and maimed so many,that was by freedom fighters was it---get real
mike

Answer 10

Dont have an opinion if you arent over there fighting. My husband is going in May to Iraq so that you can sit your *** at your computer and ask stupid fuck1ng questions like that. The men and women over there are making sure that when you walk out the door you dont get your fuck1ng head blown off. Do you have a problem with that?