2007-09-02 11:24:50 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
kill one person, you're a murderer, kill a thousand you're a conqueror, your question is one of the best I've read as it requires no answer, everyone who reads it will give their view from their own perspective, and in doing so shows the fundemental problem with people as a whole. We all find justification for our actions if we cannot see the consequences from another point of view. Well done, very thought provoking.
2007-09-02 22:46:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sort of.
Attacking the world trade centre was terrorist as it wasn't in an Arab or Islamic country and the USA wasn't at war with any Arab or Islamic nation at that time.
The 'insurgents' in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are freedom fighters who are killing invaders in their country.
So basically a freedom fighter is someone who attacks invaders of their homeland-either in that homeland or in the enemies country.So other freedom fighters are/were the Mau Mau,the IRA,Hamas and Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers.Their enemies and allies of their enemies call such groups 'terrorists'
Terrorists-true terrorists-are mental people who attack random targets to try and get what their warped members want-e.g. Al-Qaeda.
2007-09-02 13:33:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It's just a shame, that with all the opportunities of global communication using modern technology, we still seem unable to speak to each other.
2007-09-02 23:38:39 · answer #3 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope. People defending their own country against invaders would be freedom fighters. Many Iraqis would be and were not referred to as terrorists for that reason. These were the ones hitting military targets, NOT civilians (though some might die in the attack unintentionally).
Then there are freedom fighters who use terrorist tactics, attacking civilian targets. That is contemptible.
A terrorist is attacking civilian targets in countries other than his own. They themselves are contemptible.
There is a BIG difference.
2007-09-02 12:24:30 · answer #4 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
excellent point. and yes, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. for a perfect example close to home, look at N I over the past 27 odd years.
2007-09-02 23:43:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmmmm... yes and no.
Obviously the subjectivity is a factor, I would however say that a terrorist instigates terror by attacking any and all targets, including civilians. Where as a freedom fighter targets the infastructure and military units of his enemy.
Other than that, yes, it depends on where you are standing.
2007-09-03 01:54:29 · answer #6 · answered by Caffeine Fiend 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Terrorists want chaos, Freedom Fighters want peace.
It's all about ideals.
2007-09-02 22:16:38 · answer #7 · answered by Sweet and Sharp 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes. when i was at college there was this one lad who said that the Palestinian people were freedom fighters and the IRA were terrorist. when i asked him the difference he said he lives close to the IRA and far enough away from Israel.
So personal perspective is whats its about.
2007-09-02 22:18:43 · answer #8 · answered by Kat Moonsstar 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think so - A terrorist is a freedom fighter for the oppressed. Robin Hood was a robber but a hero to the poor.
2007-09-02 11:36:45 · answer #9 · answered by Grinning Football plinny younger 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
In recent times great men like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela have been labelled "terrorists". It is not a constructive label at all, and is used purely to condemn the actions of the alleged "terrorist". Condemnation does not change anything. What would be truly constructive would be asking them what they want and what is the mimimum requirement to end violence, and what they would concede in return. By definition you do not make peace with your friends.
2007-09-02 11:50:32 · answer #10 · answered by Phil McCracken 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋