If a russian soldier attacked the U.S.A would we call him a terriost? If so if a United states soldier attacked Russia would we call him a freedom fighter?
2007-06-27 03:37:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
You hit right on it, it's all a matter of perspective.
2007-06-27 03:42:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
if a USA soldier attacked the Russia would they call him a terrorist? if a Russian soldier attacked USA would they call him a freedom fighter?...
in any conflict both sides have their reasons and view points...
one side thinks the other is bad and should die or atleast be stopped with excessive force....
it's all very "ask not for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee"...
if you don't find out what both sides are fighting for you can't be sure you're on the right side...
this side is always great and that side is horrible, untill you're on the other side... then by virtue of it being the other side, everything's reversed...
2007-06-27 10:54:35 · answer #2 · answered by atzu_87 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a terrorist is someone who intimidates a mass of people through an act of terror............if an US Soldier attacked russia he may be called lots of things but mabee not a freedom fighter. I guess it depends which side you are on as well.
2007-06-27 10:41:11 · answer #3 · answered by arc7499 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
any person who instills terror through extreme religious/ idealogical/ politcal beliefs to gain control and complete a certain goal.
it could be said that the russian would be a terrorist.
the good guy is always the guy who wins, wether it truly is moraly correct or not, so yea the american would be a freedom fighter to some, but to russia he'd probably be a terrorist.
2007-06-27 14:54:17 · answer #4 · answered by bosox4life 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
a terrorist is:
not a member of an organized army backed by a nation state
in civilian clothing
who attacks civilian targets with the purpose of creating fear and panic and death at random of innocent bystanders.
A soldier by definition is not a terrorist.......he is acting, in a clearly identifiable uniform, under an identifiable, accountable chain of command....if he's in civilian clothing he's a spy or saboteur; if he's planting bombs on school buses..rather than military vehicles...he is, even if acting under orders, a war criminal.....
2007-06-27 13:49:35 · answer #5 · answered by yankee_sailor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on who's being terrorized. I'm sure many Iraqis would call the American troops terrorists.
2007-06-27 11:47:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
'Terrorist' is a meaningless word these days. If you pay attention to the US Media, it will catch on to a buzz word and adulterize it until the word is absolutely meaningless anymore. Nowadays, if you are a protester you are a political terrorist, if you are a bank robber you are a terrorist, if you are a soldier you are a terrorist. Its stupid really when people can't use a word in its original context.
2007-06-27 10:42:56 · answer #7 · answered by BillyBob 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A terrorist uses napalm, B-52s, nuclear weapons, smart bombs, B2 Stealth bombers, etc
2007-06-27 10:42:10 · answer #8 · answered by Roscoe R 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋