A terrorist often use violence as a means to gain attention as governments repeatedly prove that they do respond and react when violence occurs.Most governments and "legitimate" military leaders do not openly attempt to use civilians as shields or aim at them during times of political conflict.Nelson Mandela does not come in this category.He fought for his land...........But through political terrorism.Here,terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible.For him it freedom fight but for other such as the sufferers afroamericans at that time he was a terrorist.The main purpose of this talk is to give the audience an overview of how terrorists see the world, both strategically and morally.
2007-01-16 19:29:00 · 9 answers · asked by nid_mk 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
People this is Semantics and romantic to add insult to injury.Terrorism is a political and military tool of suppression and confusion. Every body uses it. Most Western governments employ it enthusiastically and have been doing so for thousands of years. "freedom fighter is an interpretation and depends very much on which side of the fence you are. It's a bit like God. God is always on our side... so do all parties involved claim. Look at the Taliban and Bin Laden. They were "freedom fighters" as long as they were hassling the Soviets. Then they became terrorists. The Americans have butchered terrorized and finally wiped out most of the natives but that's OK. After all they were not christian. Point is terrorism is used by governments every day everywhere and not just for war or revolutions.
2007-01-16 20:15:49 · answer #1 · answered by The Stainless Steel Rat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not Like That if He is a Freedom fighter then why we call him as terrorist . If we give freedom to all we cant control the world. Every one realise i am a human i have a sense to do such thing and avoid to do with bad sense . But i dont know how to solve terrorism . Better u suge all brain and heart and put good thoughts and good words . it will grow only good action. if we put wheet on the field only we get weet if we put rice on the field we get rice . if we put nothing some unnessary plant will grow for that put good things to every one heart through any way net or news papers then while reading , hearing good things all are become good.
2007-01-16 19:44:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it truly is not who you objective along with your attacks, yet what you're scuffling 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 properly be considered a freedom fighter to boot. Therefor, someone or crew might want to be one, both, or neither. One does no longer mean the different. even as concentrated on civilians isn't acceptable, there is an challenge (relying on the challenge, obviously) that they are portion of the equipment that helps the enemy. The Allies and Axis both understood this for the time of WWII and many times bombed thoroughly civilian aims. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no longer military aims, and yet it became those bombs which ended the conflict. In killing those possibility free human beings, we scared an entire u . s . a . into surrendering. this can properly be argued as being terrorism, yet it created freedom. A non-military terrorist who fought oppression became guy Fawkes. even as his objective became no longer precisely moms and babies, he did search for to kill non-military the Aristocracy Terrorists in the middle East do no longer strive against for freedom, they strive against for non secular dominance and unity. The procedures they use lead them to terrorists, yet their time table makes them oppressors. Mandela might want to were a terrorist, yet he helped end the oppression of the black majority in South Africa. of route, the human beings he freed were keen to forgive his procedures, they did opt for him president. each so often shady procedures are the in reality thanks to finish your purpose, yet when your reason is freedom, justice, and finally peace, i can't condemn it.
2016-11-24 22:45:51 · answer #3 · answered by habarugira 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing good comes from Terrorism. They are not freedom fighters. They are cowards. To kill unarmed civilians is a cowardly act. I could very easily go outside and kill innocent people, would I be a freedom fighter? No, I would be as much of a coward as they are.
2007-01-16 20:48:58 · answer #4 · answered by cheekydogg2 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is merely a point of view,that you are talking about.It is right what you say.To the natives,many are anti social elements as well as some are freedom fighters.BUT CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TERRORIST AND REVOLUTIONARIES,A TERRORIST IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYONE,OTHER THAN THEIR ORGANISATION, WHERE A REVOLUTIONARY IS.It all depends on the fact that terrorists follow certain ideologies,which many people may support as well as they can consider the people following them 'not nice'.So,all of your question depends upon the ideologies people follow or don't follow.
2007-01-16 19:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by Agnes 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, terrorism is relative. In most cases terrorism is used to terrify occupying forces.
2007-01-16 19:50:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just depends on mental level & Patriotism of the citizen !!!
2007-01-16 19:59:48 · answer #7 · answered by sandy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And what freedoms are terrorists fighting for?
2007-01-16 19:41:15 · answer #8 · answered by Box815 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so, what is your question.?
2007-01-17 14:27:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋