2006-08-14 02:06:55 · 18 answers · asked by anidha_v 1 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
no... people live already in so much fear of the world... they should be able to live atleast a little more secure in the world by bein able to take a bus without bein scared that itll blow up...
2006-08-14 02:10:56 · answer #1 · answered by damn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How anyone can say that you can call these monsters "freedom fighters" is simply insane. Freedom fighters fight for...(drum roll please)...FREEDOM. Terrorists want to force the rest of the world to live by their beliefs. That's the opposite of freedom. That's oppression.
Terrorism is getting people to do what you want by making them all afraid that you'll hurt or kill them if you don't fall into line. There's no logic, no reasoning, no bargaining - just terror. If that's the only way that you can get people to agree with you, don't you think you might not have a valid point?
2006-08-14 02:11:42 · answer #2 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only way I can see it justified is if the group being terrorized is trying to kill everyone of a ethnic type on the face of the earth.
So the Jews could doing terrorist attack on the nazis would have been fine. Otherwise there are much better way of doing things.
2006-08-14 02:11:29 · answer #3 · answered by Lupin IV 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Wait....let me think......Still no.
One idiot already answered that terrorists are merely freedom fighters. Funny, if I were to fight for my freedom it would not entail anything resembling terrorism. It is one thing to fight back against someone who is oppressing your freedoms and liberties, but it is completely different to attempt to incite terror in a population by killing innocent people.
These are not valiant actions. Terrorists are cowards. I have seen many of them crying and claiming that they love us and our country after my team and I captured them. Funny to see how their "convictions" fail so promptly upon finding themselves in the hands of the real freedom fighters. If I was fighting for my freedom and was captured by the "enemy". I would hold steadfast to my own real convictions till the bitter end.
Let's not glorify the murderers and cowards. They are not the victims. The man, woman, child, etc who goes to the store and dies from an explosion was most likely not inhibiting anyone's freedoms.
2006-08-14 02:19:55 · answer #4 · answered by Teufel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would all depend on your definition of a terrorist. If it is someone that induces terror into people, than a psychologist working with people with phobias could be a terrorist. If it is someone who kills innocent people for thier own personal beliefs and gain, then the tobacco company could be terrorist.
2006-08-14 02:14:45 · answer #5 · answered by evyl_temptryss 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, do you hate George Washington? He was a guerrilla and a terrorist to the British government of his time, but everyone in the USA just adooooores his sorry rump, wooden teeth and all. Terrorists are usually someone else's national heroes.
2006-08-14 02:14:49 · answer #6 · answered by Cat Loves Her Sabres 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's always justified as long as they win, look at our own history
2006-08-14 02:11:03 · answer #7 · answered by cirdellin 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Killing innocent lives can never be justified.
2006-08-14 02:17:31 · answer #8 · answered by Mujareh 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terrorist is the one who loose the war. Atrocities executed by the winner are called collateral damage.
2006-08-14 02:18:36 · answer #9 · answered by Chistrix 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your question scares me.Does something like that needs to be asked?
2006-08-14 02:11:01 · answer #10 · answered by sanja77 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋