Turn on thread page Beta

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you consider the Mujahideed's to be terrorists or freedom fighters, and WHY?

    How do you think media/culture/beliefs are influencing our opinions? What about the PKK, Hamas, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Terrorists or freedom fighters?

    To what extent can terrorism be justified? Is there a difference between terrorism and righteousness?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Terrorism is a method employed by freedom fighters. All those organisations are terrorist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Some separatists and freedom fighters have terrorist operations. Some don't. For example the Provisional IRA is linked with terrorism, but Sinn Féin as a whole isn't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    If they kill or harm others for their political beliefs, they are terrorists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What would you call the US?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SwedenSappy)
    Do you consider the Mujahideed's to be terrorists or freedom fighters, and WHY?

    How do you think media/culture/beliefs are influencing our opinions? What about the PKK, Hamas, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Terrorists or freedom fighters?

    To what extent can terrorism be justified? Is there a difference between terrorism and righteousness?
    If you are fighting an occupying force then you are a freedom fighter. I don't see how a resistance force can be a terrorist when they are fighting an aggressor.
    Take Iraq as an example, the West illegally invades and when the people fight back they are labelled a terrorist. However it is the West who has committed an act of terrorism by invading a sovreign nation. The people who fight back are only defending their lands from an aggressor.

    Terrorist is also a word full of political motives. Anyone who argues for resistance becomes one. Take Ghandi as an example who was labelled a terrorist for resisting the British occupation of India.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    If they kill or harm others for their political beliefs, they are terrorists.
    Wait... what?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Ravi_)
    What would you call the US?
    i wouldnt call them a terrorist... terrorists dont follow any rules of engagement... or discriminate between soldier or civilian
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Wait... what?
    Yes?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tut.exe)
    i wouldnt call them a terrorist... terrorists dont follow any rules of engagement... or discriminate between soldier or civilian
    Niether does the US. The predator strikes in Northern Pakistan have killed only about 30 insurgents but also 600 civilians according to one news report. Similarly a million civilian casulties in Iraq since the invasion. If we want to count civilian death tolls, NATO has killed more than the terrorists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    If they kill or harm others for their political beliefs, they are terrorists.
    What about the Israeli military then? Going on that loose definition they are also terrorists.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    What about the Israeli military then? Going on that loose definition they are also terrorists.
    No, they are attacking those who attack them. In self-defence, violence is justified.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tut.exe)
    i wouldnt call them a terrorist... terrorists dont follow any rules of engagement... or discriminate between soldier or civilian
    "Saddam's Iraq did not threaten the US, did not attack them, did not want war with them, did not have weapons of mass destruction. Yet, the US attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq. And when Iraqis attack their troops, they call it terror and they call them terrorists.

    What is Nagasaki – the atomic bombing of a defenceless city of a defeated nation – other than an act of slaughter, killing 40,000 men, women and children in minutes to force Japan's warlords to submit to America's will? But that was war, they say, and Japan was the aggressor."

    If Japan was the agressor in the WWII, wasn't the US the agressor in the case of Iraq?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I should answer this; I'm studying Terrorism for A Level.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    No, they are attacking those who attack them. In self-defence, violence is justified.
    Are you sure Nato killed a million civilians? I'm pretty sure they are civilian deaths full stop - the vast majority of which are done by terrorists.

    Your point on Israel is debatable. They insist its purely self defence and they do all they can to help Palestinian civilians, but their actions suggest otherwise.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Your point on Israel is debatable. They insist its purely self defence and they do all they can to help Palestinian civilians, but their actions suggest otherwise.
    Israel targets Hamas - the people who wage violence against Palestinians as well as Israelis.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SwedenSappy)
    "Saddam's Iraq did not threaten the US, did not attack them, did not want war with them, did not have weapons of mass destruction. Yet, the US attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq. And when Iraqis attack their troops, they call it terror and they call them terrorists.

    What is Nagasaki – the atomic bombing of a defenceless city of a defeated nation – other than an act of slaughter, killing 40,000 men, women and children in minutes to force Japan's warlords to submit to America's will? But that was war, they say, and Japan was the aggressor."

    If Japan was the agressor in the WWII, wasn't the US the agressor in the case of Iraq?
    You can't seriously think Hitlers invasion of Europe (and Japans subsequent support) is comparable to Americas invasion of Iraq?

    Yes, its controversial and I was highly against it, but the invasion of Iraq was at least partially to help the Iraqi civilians being oppressed by their dictator - and I'm pretty sure Iraqi's are in support of US troops being there - despite "a million" casualties.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    One man's anything is another man's anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cesare Borgia)
    Terrorism is a method employed by freedom fighters. All those organisations are terrorist.
    This
    +Rep
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    No, they are attacking those who attack them. In self-defence, violence is justified.
    Justified according to whom? You?

    According to international law, indiscriminate attacks against a civilian population- which the UN's Fact Finding Mission found Israel to be guilty of- is illegal.

    Have you read the Goldstone Report?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.