Evaluate the Statement, “One Person's Terrorist Is Another Person's Freedom Fighter.”
Evaluate the statement, “One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.”
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of “terrorist” is “a person, usually a member of a group, who advocates terrorism or a person who frightens others.” As for the phase “freedom fighter”, it refers to “a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.”
In the Western media, and often in the world media “Terrorists” are always described as violent people, and enemies of world peace. However, are terrorist methods essentially evil? According to the society nowadays, most people would agree to this statement as the author, Gus Martin, in “Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues” said “Terrorism commonly evokes images of maximum violence against innocent victims carried out in the name of a higher cause.” He also raises the question “Are not terrorism is simply a matter of one’s point of view?” Everyone have values that worth fighting for, killing for or even dying for. Most would do whatever it takes to protect their values. Most would agree to the basic values such as freedom and liberty are indeed worth fighting for. “Terrorists” are human; they would act the same way as everyone else.
In theory, there are no right or wrong answers to much human behaviour; a lot of time, if you want to understand one’s action, you have to know their reasons; perhaps it’s like the phrase “where you stand depends on where you sit.” For example, if someone with a gun that is aiming at your head, is it not an act of terrorism? If the gun is aiming on an enemy’s head in the name of your freedom, how can it possibly be terrorism?
Things can always be looked at from two perspectives. For example, smoking and littering on transits are considered being socially unacceptable behaviours rather than fundamental evil. In other words, these acts are illegal because society has declared them to be wrong; they may not be immoral.
There are lots
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of “terrorist” is “a person, usually a member of a group, who advocates terrorism or a person who frightens others.” As for the phase “freedom fighter”, it refers to “a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.”
In the Western media, and often in the world media “Terrorists” are always described as violent people, and enemies of world peace. However, are terrorist methods essentially evil? According to the society nowadays, most people would agree to this statement as the author, Gus Martin, in “Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues” said “Terrorism commonly evokes images of maximum violence against innocent victims carried out in the name of a higher cause.” He also raises the question “Are not terrorism is simply a matter of one’s point of view?” Everyone have values that worth fighting for, killing for or even dying for. Most would do whatever it takes to protect their values. Most would agree to the basic values such as freedom and liberty are indeed worth fighting for. “Terrorists” are human; they would act the same way as everyone else.
In theory, there are no right or wrong answers to much human behaviour; a lot of time, if you want to understand one’s action, you have to know their reasons; perhaps it’s like the phrase “where you stand depends on where you sit.” For example, if someone with a gun that is aiming at your head, is it not an act of terrorism? If the gun is aiming on an enemy’s head in the name of your freedom, how can it possibly be terrorism?
Things can always be looked at from two perspectives. For example, smoking and littering on transits are considered being socially unacceptable behaviours rather than fundamental evil. In other words, these acts are illegal because society has declared them to be wrong; they may not be immoral.
There are lots