One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter??

idisrsly

I'm serious
V.I.P.
#1
I realise I am asking this on a forum consisting mainly of Americans and that this is a rather touchy subject, but what are your thoughts on this?

Can you comprehend how one man's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter? None of us have control over where and under what circumstances we are born. Is the man born in a wartorn Iraq really evil for becoming a terrorist, or is he a victim of his own circumstances?

Hearing about terrorist attacks, do you hate the man, the terrorist, or the criminal group he belongs to? What would you do if you were in that persons situation?
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#2
Hearing about terrorist attacks, do you hate the man, the terrorist, or the criminal group he belongs to? What would you do if you were in that persons situation?
Why not all three? The person is a fool for being so blindly led into sacrificing him/herself. The criminal group is committing acts against civilians almost 100% of the time. Lastly, the terrorist is no different from the man. They are one in the same.

Obviously a villain to you may be an ally to me, that's just basic logic. No doubt one man's freedom fighter will be another man's terrorist. However, it's hard to side with the "common" terrorist type being the radical religious bomber in any way shape or form unless you believe that sort of brute force "believe-it-or-die" method is a good way to do things.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#3
I guess if your idea of freedom includes ritualistic female "circumcision", honor
killings, beheading of innocents, and mass murder of civilians, all in the name of religious ideaology, then what can you say about that? Except that I support your complete and total destruction.
 

idisrsly

I'm serious
V.I.P.
#4
Let me ask you a further question then. If we should hate all three, what is the solution? Will war resolve cultural differences, religious beliefs and radical terrorists?

Can time and money spent on war not be better used somewhere else? Should we try and 'educate' these nations to better fall into our mould in future, or would that be too much intervering? Do we leave them be and continue fighting?

As for female "circumcision", honor killings, beheading of innocents, and mass murder of civilians, all in the name of religious ideaology, well, you bring up a good point there SS. This is a dispicable practice, one the western world could never fathom. But then, that has been their beliefs for centuries. So again, should we try and 'educate' them and advance them to what we belief is the better life?
 
Last edited:

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#5
Are we talking about only times of war? Because I largely agree with Cons and SS when it comes to terrorists who target and kill innocent civilians with the “‘believe-it-or-die’” method.

However, different contexts derive different meanings from this word. “Terrorism” has become a word that I think is thrown around too loosely in the 21st century. For example, The Animal Liberation Front has been labeled a domestic “terrorist” organization, and yet they do not actually hurt anyone—they destroy property and try to “steal” animals from biomedical research labs that perform arbitrary and unnecessarily cruel experimentation—I cannot condemn all of what they do. The illegality of an action does not necessarily automatically mean that the “person” is committing an immoral act. They have garnered such bad press about the destruction of property that in many cases they actually pay for and replace the locks they break on the labs so that people will focus on their moral argument (super lawl). I think there are legitimate “terrorists” like the kind SS talks about and then the people who are labeled "terrorists" without due justification because it helps to further someone’s political goals.

So yeah, sometimes a person labeled a “terrorist” (not the crazy-ass suicide bombers, mind you) can be a freedom fighter. When black slaves rose up in slave-rebellions to fight their captors on some large plantations in the American South prior to the Civil War, they were in their own vernacular labeled (by white slave-owners) as terrorist extremists inciting fear and encouraging violent measures. I suppose it all comes down to place, context, and manner of action.
 

Nevyrmoore

AKA Ass-Bandit
#6
“Terrorism” has become a word that I think is thrown around too loosely in the 21st century. For example, The Animal Liberation Front has been labeled a domestic “terrorist” organization, and yet they do not actually hurt anyone—
But isn't terrorism the use or threat of violence and terror to attain goals? Destruction of property is still an act of violence, regardless of if someone is hurt. And if they terrorise people through their methods, then they are still, technically, terrorists, even if they're of a lesser form.

Anyway, on topic, it all comes down to point of view. The rebels trying to free their country from tyranny consider themselves freedom fighters. The corrupt government call them terrorists. However, many people around the world side with the rebels, as, well hey, they're fighting for a better future. But then again, the other governments deal and trade with that country, and they've been reliable in the past, so to them, the rebels are terrorists.

When you're dealing with different cultures and ways of life, and different opinions, it's never clear cut.
 

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#7
But isn't terrorism the use or threat of violence and terror to attain goals? Destruction of property is still an act of violence, regardless of if someone is hurt. And if they terrorise people through their methods, then they are still, technically, terrorists, even if they're of a lesser form.
I see your point. I suppose it comes down to the definition and point of view of "violence." Like I said about the slaves who destroyed tools (destruction of private property) and threatened their slaveholders (violent intimidation), they were, "terrorists," by your definition, but would we really want to call them that?
 

Nevyrmoore

AKA Ass-Bandit
#8
I see your point. I suppose it comes down to the definition and point of view of "violence." Like I said about the slaves who destroyed tools (destruction of private property) and threatened their slaveholders (violent intimidation), they were, "terrorists," by your definition, but would we really want to call them that?
Like I said above; it all falls down to what your point of view is, and what your opinion is. And, in this particular case, who wrote the history books.
 
#9
I guess if your idea of freedom includes ritualistic female "circumcision", honor
killings, beheading of innocents, and mass murder of civilians, all in the name of religious ideaology, then what can you say about that? Except that I support your complete and total destruction.
If that is the case, you support the destruction of about half of the world. Not to mention the fact that most males in the world get circumcised, many african tribes share the same beliefs of beheading, and as this entire thread is about, these 'innocents' arn't innocent in their mind. I see the box, take your mind out of it.

I have to say I agree with Constantine, it is a mixture of all three, not one or the other, however, I can't stand so boldly and say they are idiots for "blindly following." Let's be frank, we are emotional beings, and almost anyone under the right circumstance would do something rash for something or someone they believe in. Look at Nazi germany, I don't believe that an entire nation was idiotic, a man just found the right methodology to persuade them. I can't say that if I was born in a different situation t hat I would or wouldn't be a terrorist.
 
#10
@ Sui: May I suggest you educate yourself on female circumcision, the involuntary non-surgical removal of a young female's clitoris for the express purpose of eliminating the possibility of sexual gratification in the belief that it will prevent the female from being promiscuous.

I'll hold off for now on returning the insult and give you a second chance on a first impression, but you may want to keep in mind that insulting me does not further your argument.