Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkilgore
The true answer to the poll question is "no". A Freedom Fighter is very different from a Terrorist. A freedom fighter fights against a government entity with the goal of overthrowing or at least hurting them. In "V" the protagonist was attacking government forces. While innocents did get killed, they were never the targets. Many of the civilians were killed by overzealous government forces trying to take down the "terrorist".
A "terrorist" is one who operates by directly terrorizing the civilian population. A vest bomb in a crowded restaurant, a car bomb at a hotel, and a hijacked jet liner slammed into a civilian building are all acts of terrorism. They have ZERO military effect.
That being said, it's become so commonplace for governments to slap the label of "terrorist" on anyone who opposes them that the word is all but worthless now. So I voted "yes" in the poll.
|
Yes, that's what I was saying. A terrorist is a terrorist no matter what he's fighting for or who he is allied with. One man might call a terrorist a freedom fighter, but that doesn't make the terrorist a freedom fighter. The "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" excuses acts of terror by implying terrorists don't really exist and it's all just a matter of perspective. It's not. If you blow up a bunch of civilians to make a political point, then you are a terrorist.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
