Should we stop using the word, "terrorists"?

Question

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and to be fair, America has killed their share of civilians in the past. Remember Dresden?

Answer 1

That is the most meaningless, over-used, thoughtless quote ever. I am sick of hearing it. Has anyone ever given it any thought at all? Or is it just mindlessly parroted? No, a terrorist is a terrorist, no more of this "another man's" bs. You show me a single Islamo-fascist that is fighting for freedom. Freedom to enslave infidels and burqa-ize every female in sight.

And why don't you be completely fair. America has killed civilians in the process of waging a war declared on us. We have never killed civilians as an ends in itself, like the terrorists do.

Answer 2

Why don't you tell the families of victims from 9-11 that the hijackers are freedom fighters. Let me guess your a huge fan of the ACLU are you not? Afraid to offend the Muslim people by using the word "terrorists?" How about Islamic extremists?

Answer 3

No, terrorists are terrorists, why call them something different.

BTW, you can spot a terrorist pretty easy. If the attacker or militia or army all wear masks, they are terrorists. Worse yet, they know they are terrorist because they are ashamed to show their faces. Rebels do not wear masks, freedom fighters do not wear masks, people with a just cause do not wear masks because they have nothing to hide. Pretty simple huh?

Terrorist are terrorist and should be call that. Unless of course you want to call them killers or murderers or maniacs and the like.

Answer 4

No, "terrorist" is a perfectly good word that should still be used.

You can be a freedom fighter without killing people who have no connection to your oppression. If my "freedom fighter" intentionally kills innocent civilians, he IS a terrorist.

That's ture even if I support his cause. When the U.S. firebombed Dresden, they were acting as terrorists. That was an immoral and evil act, just as it is immoral and evil when insurgents intentionally kill innocents in Iraq.

The solution is not to obscure morality by creating a false moral equivalence. The solution is to apply the terms fairly and impartially.

Answer 5

If it is finally defined then why not. Ohhhh ya that's because most governments of the world would be considered terrorists. Is it not terrorism to keep an entire population scared or terrorized of a possible event that could happen no matter what color of sacredness we are meant to feel.

Answer 6

So what about all the innocent people who died Sept 11. Why did these "freedom fighters" kill them? What the heck did those people ever do to these "freedom fighters" to deserve the horrible deaths they faced that day. Please, don't try to lesson the terrible impact these TERRORISTS had on their victims and the rest of our country by calling them some sweet, heroic-sounding name like "freedom fighters." I will always call them the way I see them -TERRORISTS!!

Answer 7

Actually, Winston Churchill ordered that bombing. Also, it was a time of war so Germany knew what could happen. Terrorists don't usually claim a title to a country because of what could happen (ie dresden). Also, collateral damage and purposely targeting civilians are two entirely different things

Answer 8

In time we will. 400 years ago the term was witch. As in witch hunt.
But in all fairness, Dresden was a British project. The USA did Tokyo, with fire fatalities of 200,000 in one night. That's more then both nukes combined.

Answer 9

Freedom for whom? If you're talking about Al Qaeda, they have no country, no government and no cause except to bring terror to other governments.

Freedom fighters, my Aunt Fanny. They are TERRORISTS and they count on generating fear as a means of getting a desired response.

Answer 10

Yeah, we could be real politically correct and put a positive spin on the term - but in the end, Shakespeare said it best:

A rose by any other name is still a rose.