How much would you say you agree or disagree with the following statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?
It’s a statement I on the whole would agree with but I know this can be a contentious issue so let’s see what the collective think.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
12 Answers
It’s true.
Sometimes you have to put yourself in your enemy’s shoes.
I think neither are particularly definitive terms.
Both are loaded with political connotations.
I agree with the statement. It is a shame that it has come to it.
I agree with it, but I don’t think it clarifies much of anything.
The main issue to me is: using violent ends to achieve political goals, which I think is a bad idea.
did you not ask this earlier already?
George Washington and his army could be considered terrorists.
100% agree, anyone who doesn’t is too wrapped up in one side of a dispute.
while it is true, i would say that both “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” are both miserable ideas, assuming either of these includes killing people for political gain. I think everyone has come to this exact conclusion.
Disagree. Al Queda fight for no-one’s freedom, and killing innocent people – thousands of miles away from your home – isn’t freedom fighting. It’s despicable disgusting terrrorism. They should be hunted down and treated the only way they understand.
And God bless and take care of our heroic soldiers on the front lines, wherever they may be.
Those brave freedom fighters… using teenagers to blow themselves up… women and children as shields… blowing up women and children… spraying acid on little girls because they dare to go to school… being busiest on holidays such as ramadan…
.....
Freedom of what? For what?
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
