Everyone is a terrorist but everyone can also be labeled as a freedom fighter. It is said that “The ends justify the means” and in order to achieve an important aim, it is acceptable to do something bad. In America we have done both good and bad. Although people for instance President Barak Obama elaborates that one person’s terrorist is also another person’s freedom fighter. A “terrorist” is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of a political aim. A “freedom fighter” on the other hand is a person who takes part of a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their government. In making this comment, the synonyms of the word terrorist urges to …show more content…
It is a mentality that the majority of American’s applies whether they realize it or not. Individuals according to Steven Handel believes that we implement “The Us vs. Them Mentality” by extension elaborates the mentality that individuals, for instance, Americans, give people who are different than us through race, gender, age, nationality, culture, religion, or socioeconomic status. In his article, The Us vs. Them Mentality: How Group Thinking Can Irrationally Divide Us, Handel maintains that “We see it all the time in politics (Republicans vs. Democrats)” in other words these two groups act irrationally and uncooperative. Consequently, this causes the two groups to be blind and fail to recognize other people’s interests and values. Do we as American’s also fail to recognize the interest or values of a terrorist or do we just assume that they are pure evil? I believe that we fail to recognize a terrorist interests and values. The ends justify the means, but American’s should not ignore these common differences. Americans should be super mindful of the group that we identify ourselves in and the way we view other people because it might have a negative …show more content…
It is said “the ends justify the means” that in order to achieve an important aim, it is acceptable to do something bad. But, imagine four “American” Marines urinating on several dead Taliban fighters. Of course, these soldiers have to dehumanize or otherwise face the guilt and anguish in killing another “human”. This is not the true eye of justice; this is not a “freedom fighter” by heart as America so hardly declares itself. This is an act of “terrorism” of the four American soldiers urinating on the dead with no aim in people’s values or interests. In the article, “We’re all guilty of dehumanizing the enemy”, Sebastian Junger agrees when he writes, “But of course they have dehumanized the enemy — otherwise they would have to face the enormous guilt and anguish of killing other human beings… this awful incident might reveal something else: a desperate attempt by confused young men to convince themselves that they haven’t just committed their first murder.” Along the same lines in the comic book, “We stand On Guard” shows the protagonist Amber Madeline Roos killing a soldier after he surrendered in cold blood. Amber and Highway hijacked the White Hawk the Americans used and transported themselves onto Ma 'am 's ship. In amber last words before setting off the explosions states, “You don’t get some noble defender of justice. You get me.” That
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
...display how the average citizen would see war for the first time. Colonel Kelly sees her as “vacant and almost idiotic. She had taken refuge in deaf, blind, unfeeling shock” (Vonnegut 100). To a citizen who even understands the war process, war is still heinous and dubiously justified when viewed first hand. The man who seems to have coldly just given away her son’s life without the same instinct as her has participated in this heinous wartime atrocity for so long, but it only affect her now because she cannot conceive of the reality of it until it is personally in front of her. That indicates a less complete political education of war even among those who war may have affected their entire lives. The closeness and the casualties of this “game” will affect her the most because she has to watch every move that previously could have been kept impartial and unviewed.
When we think of terrorist, we might think of radical Islamic individuals or groups who would take pride in killing anyone who is not Muslim. Even more, there are antagonistically people who want nothing more but to destroy the lives of innocence people because of their belief system. Take an individual like Theodore Kaczynski for instance; he was a former University of California at Berkeley math professor. Otherwise known as the “Unabomber,” he was indeed a terrorist because he used explosives that killed three people and wounded eighteen others in a span of almost two decades. Even more, his brother David Kaczynski was responsible for his capture.
... that turn ideological dispositions of hate into the physical violence inflicted on those that are supposedly representative for that loss. Not the leaders who are responsible for the conflict and involvement of belligerent sides, but simply representatives of the race or the nation participating in this conflict and “presumably responsible” in the death of the soldier.
Hoffman makes the argument that this “characteristic of self denial distinguishes the terrorist from other types of political extremists,” in that, under duress, even those extremists whose identification with their cause could prove illicit or disreputable, would admit to those appellations for themselves; however, this is not the case for the terrorist––Hoffman claims that those dubbed terrorists will “go to great lengths to evade and obscure any such inference or connection… The terrorist will always argue that it is society or the government or the socio-economic `system' and its laws that are the real `terrorists', and moreover that if it were not for this oppression, he would not have felt the need to defend either himself or the population he claims to represent,” (Hoffman 20). This is evinced by an anecdote offered by Terry Anderson, an American journalist taken hostage by Shiite Hezbollah militants for nearly seven years, wherein he details a conversation with one of his captors: upon reading a newspaper’s characterizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, the guard’s visceral reaction is a disassociation from the term, indignantly responding that “we are not terrorists, we are fighters” (Politifact). On the surface, the guard’s statement offers no tangible conclusion other than there exists a connotative
killing and breaking the law can be justified to the ethics of warfare, the themes in the novel have a
(Chermak, 2006) The media is one of the leading causes of stereotypes, and what influences our beliefs today. When you think of a terrorist, you may think of either a middle-aged Muslim male or a middle-aged white male with some sort of mental or social disorder. This isn't always the case. A terrorist can be of any race, age, and social class.
What is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists? Essentially they are both fighting for a cause. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion and a freedom fighter is a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment. Which expression best describes the Sons of Liberty? Do they fit in both categories? If you look them up anywhere in a history book, magazine, article, or even the Internet they are usually labeled as heroes or Patriots. Here is a group of middle and lower class shopkeepers, artisans, workers and tradesman who stood together and prepared to stand for a cause.
What internally drives a terrorist’s motivation varies from subject to subject. While the average American citizen would likely be quick to point terrorists hate the western way of life and what it represents, the issue is far more complex. Simon Cottee’s article “What Motivates Terrorists?” (2015), looks at various levels of motivation. Prior definitions of terrorism looked at the defining cause as possibly psychological abnormalities within in the individual (Cottee, 2015). As studies have evolved, the focus has shifted to the environment in which the terrorist is surrounded. While certainly there is cases in which a person who is mentally unstable could be an ideal target for terrorist propaganda, the number of cases involving mental
Criminology theories are Conflict Theory which is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating within society. Critical Theory approaches to culture, and esp. to literature, that seeks to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures that produce and constrain it. Labeling Theory is how the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. Life Course Theory focuses on the stage of life that exposure to health promoting or harmful influences occurs and the duration of exposure to these influences. Positivist Theory concerns with positive facts and phenomena, and excluding speculation upon ultimate causes or origins.
“Terrorist is a person who uses violent and intimidating methods in the pursuit of political aims; esp. a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects” (Oxford English Dictionary). Terrorist is generally considered to be derogatory and therefore has a negative connotation. For this reason, those who approve of the individuals actions use the terms partisan and freedom fighter to show a slightly more positive association. Conversely, “revolutionary is defined as relating to, characterized by, or of the nature of political revolution; involving or constituting radical change.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.“ This is a popular quote regarding the state of terrorism, and how certain people may consider terrorism justifiable.
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
“Stereotyping is a three-part process” (Floyd, 61). In the first stage, we identify a group to which we believe another person belongs. For example, if a man is wearing a turban, one might assume he is a Muslim. In the next stage, we recall a generalization others often make about the people in that group. For example, many people in the United States generalize all Muslims as terrorists or haters of America. The last stage in the process of stereotyping is applying the generalization to that person. “You are Muslim, therefore must be a terrorist.” Obviously, these assumptions are not accurate, but are examples in the process of stereotyping (Floyd, 61).
terrorist is to not kill the individuals who die during the attack, but to affect the society it directly attacks through violence.