• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Do you agree with the statement?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 57.5%
  • No

    Votes: 17 42.5%

  • Total voters
    40

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you agree? Why? Why not?
 
It's a true statement. While some may view someone as a terrorist, there will be someone else that is sympathetic to their cause.
 
Yes, it's true. It's all about perspective.
 
Terrorism is totally subjective, so I would say that the statement is a valid one.
 
I believe in the saying.

Terrorism doesn't exist without those "terrified" bringing in their own perspective to it. If Bin Laden blew up the largest bomb of all time in the middle of no-where, and no one saw it (even though his intentions were to harm as many innocent people as possible) he would not be considered a terrorist for that action, as there were no one to be terrified.

We're fighting an enemy that we validate in our own mind.
 
Of course, the difference between the two is whether you agree with them or not.
 
100% true.

Washington was a freedom fighter according to historical record today, but if he had lost then he would have been a terrorist. It is all about perspective and who rights the history books.
 
I would like to see the one person who voted "No" to post their reason why.
 
Anyone seen Red Dawn? One of my favorite bad movies of all time. Basically Iraq only in America. Illustrates the poll question quite well I think.
 
I really don't see how a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a civilian setting can be seen as anything other than a terrorist.
 
I really don't see how a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a civilian setting can be seen as anything other than a terrorist.

Hypothetical:

The USA is invaded by the USSR in 1985. The USSR manages to capture some of the west coast, but the war is still raging on. Are Americans who kill collaborators terrorists?
 
I would like to see the one person who voted "No" to post their reason why.

That may not happen as guests can vote in the Polls section.
 
Hypothetical:

The USA is invaded by the USSR in 1985. The USSR manages to capture some of the west coast, but the war is still raging on. Are Americans who kill collaborators terrorists?

Known collaborators? Then I would say no.
 
Just to be straight, are we talking about the bombing kind of terrrorist or someone putting a penis on tv for 1 seconds terrorist? :lol:
 
I really don't see how a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a civilian setting can be seen as anything other than a terrorist.

The group this guy runs with will see him as fulfilling his duty to his religion. He is fighting for the freedom of his brothers, friends, and neighbors. Thus, a freedom fighter.
 
The group this guy runs with will see him as fulfilling his duty to his religion. He is fighting for the freedom of his brothers, friends, and neighbors. Thus, a freedom fighter.

A freedom fighter using terrorism, he/she is still a terrorist.
 
But not to his brothers/sisters-in-arms. They are not going to see him as a terrrorist. They are going to see the cause they are fighting against as the terrorism.

I think they know the act is used to inspire terror in the civilian populace.
 
How many terrorists are actually fighting for freedom?
 
A freedom fighter using terrorism, he/she is still a terrorist.

Depends on what 'using terrorism' is.

Some see what US and UK did as terrorism and the only means open to people are using their own body as weapons seeing they would not have access to the same high tech equipment open to more wealthy countries.
 
Back
Top Bottom