what is ur opinion of the quote ‘one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist’?
Posted on December 15th, 2009 by admin
more details the better and the more persuassive language is good too, thanks 
During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union, yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush. Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa’s Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say "There is the famous statement: ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:53 am
It is true that the opinions differ from person to person in a society.
And i think it is thing which is true for past, present and future.
And all we need to say is good luck freedom fighter n bad luck terrorist.
References :
December 16th, 2009 at 4:43 am
I reckon it has to do with the conflicting opinions over what is right and wrong. That these days there is no black and white, just grey areas.
Take William Wallace, to his people he was seen as a freedom fighter. A man fighting and willing to die for what he believed in. He would do anything to realise the freedom he felt was owed to him, even if people had to die in his quest.
Scottish royalty, however saw him as a terrorist. A man rebelling against the laws and norms that they had planned so delicately. A man guilty of slaughtering ‘innocent’ people. A heathen, turning his back on God and his country.
So you see, in this instance, a person is judged by his intentions. And the conflicting opinions over what is right and what is wrong ensure that what I see as a Freedom Fighter, you might see as a terrorist.
References :
December 16th, 2009 at 5:13 am
During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union, yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush. Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa’s Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say "There is the famous statement: ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.
References :
December 16th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Your question indicates you want an essay – IE for school – so I’m not going to be that detailed, but rather lead you in a different direction than one of the other answers.
Something to think about is the target of the action of the freedom fighter/terrorist. A terrorist tends to be rather indiscriminate as to their targets, where a freedom fighter would be more likely to assail only the targets of the power they are fighting against. The Afghans of old typically only attacked Soviet military targets. Today, the rebels will kill anyone, friend or foe. There is a distinct difference there.
References :
December 16th, 2009 at 6:16 am
It’s pretty obvious. It all depends on your point of view. . .talk about 911.
The idea that a freedom fighter has more morals than a terrorist is an interesting concept. A freedom fighter may be seen by his side as a hero but that doesn’t guarantee that his methods are any more moral than a terrorist.
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. It’s just that simple.
Per Webster’s New World Dictionary freedom fighter. . .see rebel. . .A person engaged in a political revolution syn. insurrectionist, revolutionary, agitator, insurgent. Terrorist has the exact same definition.
It seems today that here terrorists have a religious background and they fight for their religion much like the those knights on the Crusades. The dictionary says political revolution (war) which is based on governmental policy.
That should give you some good blah, blah, blah.
Always use quotes and a $5 software package of WNW Dictionary will serve you well in school and an excellent quote in all papers and an excellent way to reword quotes.
References :