One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Question

do you agree or disagree?

Answer 1

disagree. fighting for freedom is different that killing randomly and with out provocation.

Answer 2

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Of course it is! BUT also: one man's selfdefence is another man's unjustified retaliation.

Both statements are based on criticizing and blaming "the other" who MUST be wrong since "they" don't agree with "us". "We" didn't do anything to cause a confrontation! Of course not. "We" are "good" the "others must be "evil"!

Think again!!

Almost all confrontaions start with "wants", not with consideration for all parties involved. I want MY RIGHTS! If they are violated I will fight for them.

Then we look for ways to get "justice". If we don't get what we think is justice peacefully we start the blame game, in order to find sympathy from others who may agree with us that the "other(s)" must be wrong.

We don't (want to!) look at where we could be wrong ourselves. Instead of trying to understand the other side and negotiating a compromise that can be agreed upon by both (or all) parties, we want OUR RIGHT. The "others" must give in or else!

Just yesterday I watched two kids playing ball next door in a driveway. The girl complained: "Don't throw that ball at our garage door!" The boy, a neighbour's kid, didn't listen. So the girl takes this ball and throws it down the street. The boy picked up the girls ball and did what? - You guessed it. He threw it down the street as well. That's when I thought: isn't that exactly how wars start?

What happened to our "civilized" society? Why must we lay blame instead of trying to understand the "others" and learn how we offend their rights and find agreement rather than "retaliate".

Christians have been taught to use compassion and forgiveness. Similar teachings are contained in other religions (including Islam!) and in various philosophies. Why is it not commonly used in our world?

Because personal "rights" are put ahead of personal obligation. When will we ever learn?

Answer 3

Would you call the army that fought for independence of the United States from England terrorists or freedom fighters? Terrorists typically attack unarmed non-combatants. Freedom fighters typically attack organized, armed battalions of trained soldiers. There is a huge difference.

Answer 4

No. A terrorist targets civilians. Freedom fighters target other fighters--not innocents.

Answer 5

Yes, I definitely agree. There are always many sides to many issues we see and hear on the news.

Answer 6

that's not who you objective inclusive of your attacks, yet what you're struggling with for that concerns. A terrorist is someone who makes use of concern as a tactic, and no matter if it truly is for the sake of freedom, they could be considered a freedom fighter as well. Therefor, someone or crew will be one, both, or neither. One does no longer advise the different. at the same time as concentrated on civilians isn't suited, there is an situation (reckoning on the region, for sure) that they are element of the device that helps the enemy. The Allies and Axis both understood this throughout WWII and regularly bombed thoroughly civilian objectives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no longer military objectives, and yet it replaced into those bombs which ended the warfare. In killing those probability free human beings, we scared an total usa into surrendering. this can nicely be argued as being terrorism, yet it created freedom. A non-military terrorist who fought oppression replaced into guy Fawkes. at the same time as his objective replaced into no longer precisely moms and little ones, he did search for to kill non-military the Aristocracy Terrorists contained in the middle East do no longer wrestle for freedom, they wrestle for religious dominance and team spirit. The procedures they use lead them to terrorists, yet their agenda makes them oppressors. Mandela would were a terrorist, yet he helped end the oppression of the black majority in South Africa. for sure, the persons he freed were prepared to forgive his procedures, they did opt for him president. from time to time shady procedures are the in straightforward words thanks to finish your purpose, yet when your reason is freedom, justice, and finally peace, i won't be able to condemn it.

Answer 7

that is one possible way of looking at it just depends on who's side you're on another thing is who wins in the end because only victors write history

Answer 8

Good line. From the James Bond movie, "Die another Day".

Answer 9

Yes thats a fact. So do i get 10 points?

Answer 10

True. Ask an Arab Shiite Muslim what they think of Hezbollah, and you'll see.