Aren't you aware that your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter?

Question

The French Resistance of WWII, for example. The Germans called them terrorists. We called them freedom fighters. Israel's Irgun, another good example. The British called them terrorists. The world generally accepts them today as freedom fighters. There can really be no objective use of the word terrorist. All terrorists believe that they are acting in a moral and just fashion against an oppressive enemy. There is no terrorist who thinks to himself, "I am an evil terrorist and I am killing people just for fun".....

It's fine to say that killing soldiers and politicians is OK but that civilians are off limits. But that's OUR definition. Other people and cultures have other definitions as to what is right and wrong. Of course I personally adhere to the Wesern view of what a freedom fighter should or shouldn't do, but my opinion doesn't really count in the Middle East, now does it? These people want to win. Winning is more important to them than other humanitarian concerns. It's their part of the world so you have to play by their rules...

It's fine to say that killing soldiers and politicians is OK but that civilians are off limits. But that's OUR definition. Other people and cultures have other definitions as to what is right and wrong. Of course I personally adhere to the Wesern view of what a freedom fighter should or shouldn't do, but my opinion doesn't really count in the Middle East, now does it? These people want to win. Winning is more important to them than other humanitarian concerns. It's their part of the world so you have to play by their rules...

It's fine to say that killing soldiers and politicians is OK but that civilians are off limits. But that's OUR definition. Other people and cultures have other definitions as to what is right and wrong. Of course I personally adhere to the Wesern view of what a freedom fighter should or shouldn't do, but my opinion doesn't really count in the Middle East, now does it? These people want to win. Winning is more important to them than other humanitarian concerns. It's their part of the world so you have to play by their rules...

Answer 1

a terrorist is somebody who kills non-governmental personnel to make a political point. period. if he were to sit up on a hill with a sniper rifle picking off military and politicians, he's not a terrorists. if he kills average citizens at random in hoping to get a government to change something, he's a terrorist. there's your objective definition of the word terrorist.

why should i care what somebody else's definition of a terrorist is? i have my definition of the word, and if somebody disagrees, then in my view they are wrong. i am still going to call those who fit my definition "terrorists", and those that do not, i will not. someone else can do the same using their own definition, i guess, even though it might be wrong in my opinion.

Answer 2

Although it is technically true to say that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter inasmuch that, yes, there are people who exist who claim one side or the other, but that is completely pointless.
The reason why is because you can say that about ANYTHING.
You can even say that about the concept of evil.
For example, Hitler was called an evil man by many but there were many others (Nazis and Nazi sympathizers) who would say not.
But the point is this, which I think you are missing:
Who was RIGHT on that issue?
The people who called Hitler evil or those who said otherwise?
And the answer is, for anyone who has any concept of what morals are, is that yes, he was an evil man and those who say otherwise are clearly wrong.

The same here. The words terrorism and terrorists are English words thus it is within the domain of English speaking peoples, namely the western world. The words are fairly well defined. If they are NOT well defined, then some clarification would be needed for those who are not grasping the concept.
There mere fact that some others, of other cultures, etc. would define the word differently is besides the point. If they define the word in such a way so that someone who is a terrorist would then be rendered a "freedom fighter" then they are simply WRONG. It also indicates a willingness to excuse terrorism by thoroughly mangling the English language and the willingness of some people to buy into that excuse.

Answer 3

O yes you are so right! Terrorists are really good people! Why don't you go to Iraq and become friends with some of them? You would be killed by them. You liberals are so stupid!

Answer 4

Sure.

And the winner gets to call them the terrorists, and gets to shoot them.

In the war against militant Islam, we really need to be on the winning side of this one.

Answer 5

I think most realize that on here. The ones that dont...Well, theres no hope anyway so why bother.

That makes me ask a question though. Whos side is Sean Penn, Rosie ODonnel, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore on since theyve all described the terrorists as freedom fighters?

Answer 6

I dont see a man strapping a bomb to himself and blowing himself up to kill civillians a freedom fighter

Answer 7

Islamofascists are fighting for the freedom to stone people for adultery, kill their sisters if they get raped and cut people's hands off for petty theft. Whoever claims these animals as "their" freedom fighters needs to be killed right along with them.

Answer 8

So which perspective do you come from? Do you support the United States or countries like Iran?

Answer 9

Freedom fighters don't kill (target) innocent women and children just to gain their freedom..

Answer 10

People that blow up themselves and women and children instead of troops are terrorists.


Call them what you want, they are cowardly terrorists