I do not agree with what terrorist do, but I do understand why.....
Lets say you as a nationalist of your country saw it get invaded.... your army wiped out, and your goverment (that you loved, and agreed with) was removed and imprisoned.
The new goverment is placed, and it puts a group that you dont like in power, and they try and make things benefit them.
You see fellow country men go along and embrace this goverment.
Wouldn't you think that the enemy has taken your country, placed a goverment that would get along with them, and wouldn't you see your fellow ex-country men as traitors.
Wouldn't you despise them.
Wouldn't you try and fight back any way you could, any way possible.
You know that fighting the enemy head on would be certain death, cause if you caused enough damage they would just call in an air-strike and kill you.
So you strike from the corners of streets and meld into the shadows after causing enough damage, so that you can hit strike again and cause more damage
2007-02-05 12:52:18 · 7 answers · asked by Sean 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
don't tell me we have some one who can think out side of the box, I agree with you100% as you said you don't haft to agree but just understand, did you know that England called George Washington a criminal and put a reward on his head , they said he was a terrorist and traitor also, so any one with common sense should know that one mans terrorist is anothers hero,
and in the case of Iraq he could be called a freedom fighter, by the ones who are on his side, I am not sure he is not a freedom fighter,
2007-02-05 13:08:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Dude there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist do not get them confused.
I think that the President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni said it the best in illustrating the difference "Nelson Mandela has been a freedom fighter until recently. Was he a terrorist? Not at all. Did you ever hear of Mr. Mandela hijacking a plane? Did you ever hear of him planting a bomb in a restaurant? Mr. Mandela was a freedom fighter, not a terrorist," he says. "The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter lies in the fact that while a freedom fighter sometimes may be forced to use violence, he can not use indiscriminate violence. The one who uses indiscriminate violence, that is the terrorist...Terrorism occurs when there is no distinction made between combatants and civilians."
By the way most countries that are invaded are usually invaded for a particular reason. If you are talking about Iraq they had it coming by shooting at our army bases in the North of Iraq. There were no elections and minorities were oppressed. Iraq was in violation of UN Charters, hence they got their asses whooped. The Kurds and the Shiites did not have any power and they wanted some control in the policy of the land. The Sunnis who had power are now struggling to recognize themselves in the new government and they hate to be powerless now, hence they are killing the Shiites and the Kurds trying to still rule by fear.
2007-02-05 13:56:01 · answer #2 · answered by MaxNHL 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You sound as if you might be confused in your question. A terrorist in my opinion is a person who lets say hijacks a plane and crashes it in to a building. You described a freedom fighter as I see it. The difference seems clear.
2007-02-05 13:00:46 · answer #3 · answered by Mother 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Good point, too bad the hypocrates will call you a terrorist or whatever 4th grade word they can come up with, but deep down they know it is true.
2007-02-05 12:55:56 · answer #4 · answered by 33 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Then maybe the original government should have complied with UN regulations and then the original governement would not have been invaded.
2007-02-05 12:56:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
terrorist?damn!
2007-02-05 13:04:46 · answer #6 · answered by robert KS LEE. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What..?
2007-02-05 13:02:01 · answer #7 · answered by Catchya'Later♥ 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋