Or are there just terrorists in today's political climate?
2007-04-18 05:49:08 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
On the border between our country and Northern Ireland since you ask.
2007-04-18 06:06:13 · update #1
Yes.
Several examples have already been given.
The definition of a terrorist is always given by the one he is actually fighting against. No one defines himself as a terrorist.
When you invade a country to collect their natural resources (and bring the people freedom and democracy) some of the inhabitants might call you a terrorist (even state-actors can be terrorists).
You can test it with any conflict in the history of mankind and you will find that both sides are always their adversaries terrorist. And propaganda (lying) about the cruelty of your ennemies is nothing new either.
It is more often than naught the winner of a conflict who will go down in History as the "freedom-fighter" or "liberator" and surely "altruistic hero".
2007-04-19 03:48:18 · answer #1 · answered by Thomas S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If this country was invaded by America I hope that to the uncollaborating British I would be classed as a freedom fighter but the collaborators in the South of England and the Americans of course I would be a terrorist.
2007-04-18 14:23:11 · answer #2 · answered by Stephen P 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've wondered about Mandela since he was part of the terrorist/freedom fight against apatite. As a school girl in Rhodesia for 3 years I saw a book of pictures passed around sneakily amongst us students. It showed pictures of terrorist attacks on African villages that co operated with the Smith Government. I saw pictures of a woman with their bottom lips cut off, a picture of a woman with her breast cut off and one of a person nailed to a tree. I knew a young man in the army at the time and asked him about what was going on and he confirmed that African terrorists were mutilating villagers who wouldn't co operate with them. Don't know if this happened in S.Africa, suppose it did. But Mandela supported the terrorists and is a Freedom fighter.
2007-04-18 13:08:01 · answer #3 · answered by purplepeace59 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Example was the french underground, our hero's the Germans terrorists. there are a lot of other cases the same,which points the way that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In my view you are correct in your assumption.
2007-04-19 06:12:09 · answer #4 · answered by cassidy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its a very easy question but often always misquoted.
Freedom fighter: Armed action against an oppressive occupying force. Targets could include Army, State Police, government officials.
Terrorist: Indiscriminate acts of violence against the civilian population.
2007-04-19 08:49:30 · answer #5 · answered by Jack 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really by definition. A fighter is someone who engages another in a fight. See the reference below: a terrorist is someone whose aim is to terrorize. That’s not a fight – again see the reference below: one is an honorable profession and is usually associated with state sponsorship (government) the other is usually in it for a personal reason (religion, faith, monetary gain). The last reference allows for both terms to be used interchangeably though again it is in the eye of the beholder.
2007-04-18 13:05:57 · answer #6 · answered by patrsup 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah! Like Robin Hood was a freedom fighter, right? Not if just happen to be the Sheriff of Nottingham he ain't.
2007-04-18 14:38:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As sad as it may seem, sometimes it just depends upon who "wins" in the end. Any death of a civilian is an absolute tragedy, and I'm sure that anyone who has served - or knows people who serve - in the armed forces will say the same about those they fight alongside who are also killed.
2007-04-18 14:45:00 · answer #8 · answered by . 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not today. Freedom fighters generally follow a strong cause,usually political, which includes the right to self-determination. Their enemies are the military forces of the oppressing group or country, or collaborators of their own nationality.
Our current breed of Islamic-influenced terrorists are just angry young idealists bent on destruction. They kill their own. They kill themselves. If they win, they will enslave entire nations under an oppressive religious theocracy and consign them to the Stone Age of superstition and darkness. The right to self-determination will be buried forever under a veil of dogma, intransigence and quasi-religious mind-control.
The answer to your question: NO, NO, NO and NO!
2007-04-18 16:57:20 · answer #9 · answered by Mojo Risin 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Has any terrorist ever got the "freedom" he was fighting for? You can not get freedom for anyone by killing yourself and spreading hatred around. The fight for freedom is never hatred, it is love and a strong will.
2007-04-18 12:59:09 · answer #10 · answered by julia b 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋