Standard: 8.1.12.B.
Evaluate the interpretation of historical events and sources, considering the
use of fact versus opinion, multiple perspectives, and cause and effect
relationships.
|
|
EQ: IS ONE MAN'S TERRORIST ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER?
Please refer to my youtube channel and watch a clip about blogging like this one. The directions/format is the same as we've been doing for blogging.
Then,
-post a paragraph or more in the comments section at the bottom of this blog (15 pts)
-also post an informative website about this topic (5 pts)
-comment on two others' posts (7.5 pts ea = 15 pts)
= 35 points total
Due: 5.18.20 Monday 11:59 pm (per 1) & 5.20.20 Wednesday 11:59 pm (per 3)
Goal: To understand and to form an opinion about when it is alright to use violence and to define terrorism.
Materials: DEL'S PAGE ABOUT TERROR VS REVOLUTION
Assignment:
-After materials on Terror vs Revolution post in the comments section. You need to write a paragraph or more explaining what you learned about Revolution vs Terrorism from what you studied on my website (ANSWER ESSENTIAL QUESTION BELOW)
-Remember to post with 'anonymous' and put your name/period after your post.
-And, list an educational website you feel will teach others about the topic.
-Finally post thoughtfully on other's posts. Remember to post on at least two other students' posts'.
Answer this:
EQ: IS ONE MAN'S TERRORIST ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER?
Tyriq Grimes-Carter Pd.3
ReplyDeleteEQ: IS ONE MAN'S TERRORIST ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER
Answer: Terrorism is an criminal act. Calling it violent would be thinking of evil, that's not a terrorist though. A perspective only viewed by life-risking combatants, fighting for their own belief, attaining their goals. When public attacks happen mainly produces overreactions succeeding every time. An idolized figure "Red Robin" is used to show great power through fear, intimidation, violence all preyed upon. Our view states terrorism become sympathetically apart of psychological war in governments, medias. If Terrorism isn't evil is it right? tactics used to show off a communicated message pursuing these tactics with extreme force. source: http://www.terrorism-research.com/
You just informed me on some things that i didnt know before and you have very good key detials.- Adrianna Finley
DeleteUsing Red Robin was a good example to use for your explanation. I honesty understand your view point better.
Delete- Michel'e Rice , Pd 3
You provided me information that i did not previously know - Najir Glenn
DeleteGood explanation.
DeleteCiara Carter Pd 1
Dana,
DeleteI like how you informed a lot of good details
Your evidence helped to better your claim, which shows in your overall claim.
DeleteKaseim
love the use of details, and evidence is very informative -Cyria
DeleteI like how used red robin as an example and i like the evidence you had. - Antuane
DeleteI like the last tidbit where you essentially give the reader to question if terrorism can be used to spread a message to a specific country that is known for heinous acts.
Delete- Maurice Hodges Pd. 3
Tyriq...can you restate this? I don't understand what you're saying here.
DeleteDaquan B PD.1
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is true. When you're in the victim position you see them as terrorist but when you're on the other side you see the "terrorist" ass almost a savior to your oppression and pain. There is no justification to terrorism but it's all about perspective and putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Some of the countries that are thought to produce terrorist were and still are oppressed and they just want a fair chance of a normal life like everyone else, and to some the solution to getting their freedom is violence which is sometimes classified as terrorism. So when we call people terrorist the people from their country may see them as heroes. For example, when the U.S. bombed Japan during WW2 some people from America probably saw that as an act that simply ended war, but the people who survived it and had to live the rest of their life with mutations probably saw the U.S. as a bunch of terrorist.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sc10882.doc.htm
Good information i like how you were specific with details.
Delete^-Adrianna Finley
Deletebasically muslims do anything for the clout. -tyriq
DeleteI totally agree that there's no justification to terrorism , your explanation behind that is great.
Delete- michel'e rice pd 3
The link you provided was very interesting to read - Najir Glenn
DeleteOmari Bouie Pd.3
DeleteHow do terrorist recruit people to their organization?
We had different opinions on it but I still think you had a good response.
Delete-Kiev Gregg Pd.3
We had similar opinions great response.
DeleteAaliyah
great response-steven dalton
Deletevery good response, I agree -Cyria
Deletei agree that there is no justification and i like how specific you were with your answer -Antuane
Deletegreat information-Mekhi
DeleteI really liked this Daquan. Yes we nee to walk in others shoes while not accepting their ends.
DeleteMehki,
DeleteCan you explain what was good about it?
The quote "one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter" was first said by Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in jail for his terrorist actions. This quote is true because the fighters are the people in the military and the terrorist are targeted as the freedom fighters because they are fighting for there nation. A freedom fighter is a person who wants there people to have there own nation so that's why terrorist lay under freedom fighters.
ReplyDeleteAdrianna Finley
PD.3
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02668734.2017.1348979?journalCode=rpps20
Omari Bouie Pd.3
DeleteDo you think that doing a protest is a part of terrorism?
Good information learned something new.
Delete-Kiev Gregg
Daquan B PD.1
DeleteNice use of the quote
tamiia
Deletegreat information
I understood and liked what you said. I only wish you said more because I liked where you are going with this but nice job.
Deleteyeah its apart of their belief not about being righteous. -tyriq
ReplyDeleteMichel'e Rice , Pd 3
ReplyDeleteA terrorist is a person who uses violence or intimidation, against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I feel the phrase " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter " means a terrorist organization can claim to be 'freedom fighters' because they are fighting for any liberty, quality, etc. Even if they have to target innocent people. It is no good behind being a terrorist no matter how you look at it. I feel terrorists can no longer say they are 'freedom fighters' because they are fighting for good. If you purposely target civilians just to try to prove or change something your not a freedom fighter your simply a terrorist.
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060?journalCode=gppr20
I like your evidence and how you explained both sides.
DeleteKaseim
Ayanna Smith
DeleteI agree that terrorists are not freedom fighters and I like your explanation for it.
tamiia
Deletei definitely agree with information provided.
I agree. When you harm innocent civilians, it's gone too far.
Deleteso theres perspectives of a terrorist vs. freedom fighter. I like your points- tyriq
ReplyDeleteIf an uprising or a revolt results in a new social, political and economic order, it becomes a revolution superseding the previous order. If it fails, it is labelled as terrorism, meaning terrorists were trying to use terrorist acts against an established social, political and economic order
ReplyDeletehttps://politicalreflectionmagazine.com/2018/10/08/raqqa-vs-kobani-terrorism-vs-revolution/
- Najir Glenn PD. 3
DeleteHi Najir. I can't accept this. Please restate in your own words after studying the material. Thank you.
DeleteOmari Bouie Pd.3
ReplyDeleteThe eq for this blog is completely true. When certain terrorist do these unspeakable acts of crime they think that they are doing God's work of spreading their religion to nonbelievers. When they see Christians, Jewish, and etc religions they think we are the enemy and that we are doing things wrong in God's eye. There is one way of spreading the faith of a religion and there are extremist. Extremist take these measures to extreme and that's when they are labeled as "terrorist".
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states
I like your points
DeleteCiara Carter Pd 1
Daquan B PD.1
DeleteI like how you explained both sides
Omari. Interesting points. I agree that religion is something that people feel very strongly about.
DeleteNelson Mendela was first to say one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Ronald Reagan said "Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power." He said this about terrorist "Terrorists intentionally kill or maim unarmed civilians, often women and children, often third parties who are not in any way part of a dictatorial regime. Terrorists are always the enemies of democracy."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/53186a
andfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02668734.2017.1348979?src=recsys&journalCode=rpps20
Ciara Carter Pd 1
I like the evdience you used to back up your claim.
DeleteKaseim Gregg
Dana,
DeleteI like how you provide a good evidence
I like how you used Nelson Mandela as a reference.
DeleteAaliyah
Adding Nelson Mendela as your evidence was good for this topic and I agree when you stated that terrorist are enemies. -kimberly pham
DeleteThis is good information and I like the source you used.
Delete- Samah Ouard Pd 1
I enjoyed how you tied in the previous topics we talked about in previous blogs and used them in your statement to 'mold' your argument together.
Delete- Maurice Hodges Pd. 3
I liked what you said here (and will issue credit) but what do YOU think? What is YOUR answer to the question?
DeleteKaseim Gregg
ReplyDeletePd. 3
If a revolt results in a new social, political, and economic order, it becomes a revolution taking the place of the previous order. However, if it fails, it is labeled as terrorism, which means terrorists were trying to use terrorist acts against an established social, political and economic order.
https://politicalreflectionmagazine.com/2018/10/08/raqqa-vs-kobani-terrorism-vs-revolution/
Ajanae Crawford p1
DeleteI agree with how you said if it fails it is labeled as terrorism, I never seen it as that good paragraph.
By using that website, you was able to conduct a simple explanation for terrorism and revolution. You came up with a straight to the point response that allowed me to understand your point of view. Good Job!
DeleteKaseim. I can't give you credit for this. Can you please elaborate in your own words?
DeleteKaseim Period 3
DeleteTo elaborate on this Mr. Del Terrorism and a revolution is some what the same, however, if all things grow it is considered to be a terrorisitic act, even though both were done to establish some type of order.
Dana, pd.1
ReplyDeleteA correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are permitted in conventional wars between nations. A terrorist organization can no longer claim to be 'freedom fighters' because they are fighting for national liberation. Even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate, an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist organization.
website: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060?journalCode=gppr20
Dana, that's were I am. I you harm civilians, you're a terrorist.
Deleteno
DeleteDana, pd.1
ReplyDeleteA correct objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are permitted in conventional wars between nations.A terrorist organization can no longer claim to be 'freedom fighters' because they are fighting for national liberation. Even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate, an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist organization.
website: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060?journalCode=gppr20
I believe a terrorist organization can not be claimed as a freedom fighter because they are fighting for national liberation. Even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate, an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist organization.
ReplyDelete-Kiev Gregg Pd.3
https://www.tandfonline.com/dpi/abs/10.1080/156142602200003260?journalCode=gppr20
very good opinion-steven dalton
DeleteI agree with this. Any organization that does more harm than good is a terrorist
Deleteorganization.
- Samah Ouard Pd 1
Why can't terrorists fight for national liberation? Isn't that ISIS goal? 1/2 credit. please elaborate.
DeleteA terrorist is a person uses violence and or intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. In my opinion the quote “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter” means a terrorist organization can claim they are being “freedom fighters” because they are so called fighting for liberty. They think that it is okay because they have a “good” reason. They will stop at nothing to get what they want even if they are target innocent people. I feel as though they shouldn’t be able to call themselves freedom fighters when they are really hurting people and causing destruction. They are purposely targeting innocent people just to get what they want and to prove a point, In my opinion that is a terrorist. There are two sides the victim and the terrorist. There is no justification to terrorism. You have to put yourself in that person shoes in order to understand. When we call people terrorist that’s because we are the victim. However, their country might feel differently than us. They might seem them as heroes who were helping to save their country.
ReplyDeleteAaliyah
https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sc10882.doc.htm
Ajanae Crawford p1
DeleteI was interested when you spoke your opinion on how terrorist should not call themselves freedom fighters. I agree because why terrorize for freedom.
Ayanna Smith
DeleteI agree that there is no justification for terrorism and I agree with the definition you gave for terrorists.
i like the way and agree on how they shouldn't be able to call themselves freedom fighters when they are hurting people and causing destruction.
Deletelizbeth perez
This is what I'm talking about! Thorough and thoughtful response IN YOUR OWN WORDS. GREAT JOB!!!
DeleteSteven Dalton pd.1
ReplyDeleteRevolutionaries seek to win the war, whereas terrorists seek to win the battle. The cause of a revolutionary is more noble as they are fighting for a cause greater than region or religion. Terrorists want to harm a group of people to get their point across. Revolutionaries see the bigger picture and are trying to win the war.
https://www.youtube.com/user/pdelpriore/videos
I agree when you stated that terrorist wants to harm many people to get their point across and its not ethical -kimberly pham
DeleteI liked how you summarized everything nicely and how everything was straight to the point. -Carrie Burgos
Deletegood job deuce i liked how you spoke and said that terrorist seek to win battles - sisco
DeleteNice job here Steven. Simple and to the point but it makes sense and it's in your own words.
DeleteCyria King/Pd. 1
ReplyDeleteThere are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist's, the victim's, and the general public's. Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public's or government's reaction to the act. The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." These sympathetic views of terrorism has become an integral part of their psychological warfare and has been countered vigorously by governments, the media and other organizations.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/
I agree with your three perspectives of terrorism. nice information-Irelynn
DeleteGreat job cyria loved how you talked about how terrorist commit acts of violence to get the attention of our society
Delete- sisco
DeleteKimberly Pham pd.1
ReplyDeleteFor terrorism its a means of tactic and for fighting for freedom its to an end or strategic goal. Terrorism is bad whereas freedom fighting is good and that labeling can prevent freedom fighting from being viewed as terrorism. I think one man's terrorist is not anthers man's freedom because in the mist of doing this they're still many innocent people at risk. Terrorist can be considered freedom fighters and that freedom fighters can resort to terrorism in my opinion. They do this to get their opinion across but by doing so they are being dangerous to the society.
https://www.e-ir.info/2018/11/29/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/
great details
Delete^lee edrington
DeleteBrooklyn Fleming
DeletePd.3
I agree. terrorists don't realize the type of impact they have towards the human society when it's so sudden and chaotic.
I agreed with everything you had to said and it was very well detailed.
DeleteWell done! You was able to read and watch videos to create a response to the EQ. Nice word choice and use of information for your answer.
DeleteYa'Nyah PD 3.
Antuane Holton pd.1
ReplyDeleteThe phrase one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is true. It does depend on perspectives of others. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is while a freedom fighter sometimes may be forced to use violence, he/she can/t use indiscriminate violence. The one who uses indiscriminate violence is the terrorist
I agree, it depends on the perspectives of others.
Delete^lee edrington
DeleteI agree that the terrorist is the one one who uses indiscriminate violence. -sydney
DeleteOk. but bare minimum...can you elaborate? 1/2 credit.
DeleteTerroism has been used as a tactic for a very long time. I think the idea that a terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is true. Depending on who’s shoes you're in, the terrorist or the victim, your opinion would differ. It's a perspective mainly viewed by people fighting for what they believe.
ReplyDeleteLee Edrington
Great start! Keep going! 1/2 credit.
DeleteAjanae Crawford Pd.1
ReplyDeleteOne man's terrorist maybe could be another man's freedom fighter. I'd say this because if you are fighting for freedom why terrorize another place you should come in would peace and good reasoning's before you terrorize unless they are the enemy in my opinion. There is a difference between fighting for freedom and simply being a terrorist and if you are terrorizing then that is not fighting for freedom. In my opinion it could be maybe it takes a terrorist to terrorize to show that they want freedom & that is a voice for someone that they are not alone and they want that freedom so they have a voice. The terrorist is maybe their voice. The "man" could be pro terrorism as well so they feel automatically freed knowing someone is behind them. Violence does not always solve things but being silent about a conflict does not either so it differs on both perspectives. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/11/29/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/
I understand your opinion very well. If someone wants to fight for freedom, they do not have to terrorize others. Good job explaining your thoughts and good use of using that website to conduct an answer to the EQ.
DeleteYa'Nyah Washington Pd 3
I agree that there both two different things and there motives behind what there accomplishing is very different. Great point of view.-sydney
DeleteI agree with your paragraph.-Mekhi
Deletei agree that there is a difference for fighting for freedom and being a terrorist. really nice paragraph with good details- Irelynn
DeleteI like what you said here, especially what you differentiated between individuals and movements.
DeleteMehki,
Deletecan you explain what you liked about the paragraph?
The phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" I would say is true. Its all about the perspective you see it in. I would say what is different between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that a freedom fighter does more good than harm. Terrorism is
ReplyDeletea tactic that has been used for years.
- Samah Ouard Pd 1
https://sites.google.com/site/delpriorenow/terrorists-or-revolutionaries
Ok but could you elaborate? 1/2 credit...
DeleteAyanna Smith
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Terrorism and Freedom Fighting have been interchangeably described as a tactic, a justified fight against oppression, and an evil abomination. For the question, "Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter," the answer is it could be; it all depends on perception and point of view. Personally I think there's a difference. A freedom fighter doesn't have to use violence (i.e. MLK and Nelson Mandela), and those that do are still different than a terrorist since they don't usually use indiscriminate violence. For example the "Black Panther Party," in a fight against police brutality, started doing armed citizen patrols against cops (cop watching). This led to many firefights with the police, resulting in the deaths of officers and members. On the other hand, Palestinian group "Black September," in a fight for the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, took hostage and killed eleven Israeli Olympic team members. While both acts of violence are wrong, the terrorists took their violence to innocent civilians. Freedom fighters, for the most part, point their violence directly towards their enemy, while terrorists point their violence to what would cause the most uproar and publicity. With that, I think terrorism is always wrong, and freedom fighting can be wrong or right.
https://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2001/11/14/terrorists-or-freedom-fighters-whats-difference
Brooklyn Fleming
DeletePd.3
I stand firmly on what you stated on it being different perceptions on freedom fighters.
tamiia pd.1
Deletei strongly agree with you on the information provided
We have similar beliefs on EQ by looking at the perspective and perception of the situation. I 100% agree with your answer and like how you worded your response. Well done!
DeleteYa'Nyah PD 3
I think your point is very strong because you were able to cite leaders/movements in the past who made revolution without violence.
DeleteBrooklyn Fleming Pd.3
ReplyDeleteIn response of doing my research I believe that “one man’s terrorism is another man’s freedom fighter” is either justified or just another inexcusable abomination to a specific target of civilians related to the government , or in other words “to each is their own” meaning there is a specific reason they make these unlawful, and criminal acts. Although they are wrong, terrorists look at it as an opportunity to be called on as “hero” or just fighting for what they believe in. However, it only makes it worse for “freedom writers” who actually fight for national liberation,but it's still seen as a terrorist organization.
Evidence used;http://www.terrorism-research.com/
DeleteI really like your thoughts here! I agree how they are seen by others is so important. Right and wrong can be hard to define for those with different values.
Deletegreat details
DeleteIn my opinion, the phrase "One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter" is a terrorists perspective of the choices they make must be the right thing to do. Terrorists don't believe that the things they do are "evil" because they're taking action for what they believe in. In their view, they're fighting by any means possible to achieve their goals. In fact, there are 3 perspectives of terrorism including the terrorists, victim's, and the public. To answer the question "Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter," I would say that it depends on your point of view. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission." A freedom fighter doesn't have to use violence to speak up for their rights or freedom. Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the instant victim. In conclusion, I believe that both forms of violence are wrong but both sides go about it 2 different ways.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.terrorism-research.com/
https://www.e-ir.info/2018/11/29/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/
Ya'Nyah Washington Pd 3
Wow. You really made me think. I do have to agree with you on this one. Ronald Reagan quote is apt. I think revolution may be more wanted by most people in the society than terrorism.
Delete-Sydney Davis
ReplyDelete-Period:1
Terrorism is based on international laws and principles regarding the type behaviors allowed in conventional wars between nations. Freedom fighter is a resistance movement against the government to achieve political goals."One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is true.Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter to some but but others though he was a terrorist like the U.S. He was an activist for racial segregation in South America, but encouraged black South Africans to defy the government’s racist segregation laws around education, employment, housing and marriage, and was banned from several locations for his efforts. At this time many colored people have been killed because of it.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060?journalCode=gppr20
i like the way you explain which based on the international laws and principles types of behaviors
Deletelizbeth perez
Yes! You get it. Nelson Mandela is a great example here because the South African leadership saw him as a terrorist but his people saw him as a revolutionary. History labels him as a revolutionary.
DeleteCarlton Young pd 3
ReplyDeleteI believe that "one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighter' is another way to say
its okay to fight for good cause, but it could be also can be miss read by others that believe to fight for something that is good for themselves rather than others. To me, i believe it depends on the cause, if its full out unlawful or unreasonable than i consider that problem, but if the fight is substantial then I think it is okay. http://www.terrorism-research.com/
I'm glad you thought about this. I'll give credit but if possible, try to elaborate on what you studied that made you say this.
Deletegood statement
Delete-Jerry Pd 1
Maurice Hodges
ReplyDeletePd. 3
The idea of terrorism and a revolution may seem like the same thing on paper, but in reality, they are both very different concepts for different purposes. When you talk about terrorism, it's usually done to invoke fear in the general public, which causes the government to ultimately answer in the domino effect. Terrorism is also considered by the U.S government to be a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. Terrorism is usually used by weaker powers but is seen as criminal activity by the adversary, but above all else, terrorism is designed to invoke fear in people. Since we've described terrorism, we also have to describe what revolutions are in history. Although they are similar in the idea of terrorism in which they have a reasoning behind their actions, along with it being very violent, revolutions are never forgotten, since they have a lasting effect in society. Almost all major states in today's world were born from revolutions. Instead of an outside group influencing others, revolutions tend to consist of ordinary people, or citizens, usually caused by the mistreatment of them. And although terrorism can happen at any time during any moment in life, revolutions tend to occur during a specific period and isn't spontaneous.
i definitely agree with you, especially how you intertwined the US gov in there.\
Delete-Amirh
tamiia pd.1
Deletei agree
I think you did a nice job of explaining both sides (terror and revolt). I can see your point about the timing of revolution and terrorism.
DeleteMekhi
ReplyDeleteperiod 3
The phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is true from my perspective. When terrorism strikes, some people might actually think that those people are doing the right thing otherwise proper authorities would be informed so they can stop it. It also depends on whose perspective it is because not all people see this topic eye to eye. I don't think it is right nor do I condone terrorism.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1561426022000032060
Well said.
Delete-Amirh
Good start Mekhi. Can you elaborate? 1/2 credit.
DeleteIrelynn
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Terrorism is both a tactic and a strategy and usually a crime. It's a unlawful violence to enforce fear or intimidation against a group of people or thing. Revolutions are historical facts of life. any state was made from revolutions. revolution and terrorism are similar because they both played of fear and it lead to war they both want power and can be very violent to achieve what they want.
https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/courses/1112S/POSC/POSC-301-1112S
Great points. Fear and power are both similarities here.
DeleteIs one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter? I truly believe that to be the case because sometimes we get terrorism mixed up with retaliation. Don't get me wrong terrorism is most definitely wrong but the way i was raised is if someone hits you, you hit them back. Sometimes that could be the case; It all depends on who's eyes your looking out of and who's shoes your in.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.e-ir.info/2018/11/29/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/
-Amirh
I think you made some nice points here but I need you to go back and spend some time with the materials before I can issue full credit (1/2 credit).
DeleteThimmy Le
ReplyDeleteTerrorism and Revolution are similar on how they both revolve around the government and how they utilize their methods. There could also be a difference, If an uprising or a revolt results in a new social, political and economic order, it becomes a revolution superseding the previous order or power centre. If it fails, it is labelled as terrorism, meaning terrorists were trying to use terrorist acts against an established social, political and economic order.
https://politicalreflectionmagazine.com/2018/10/08/raqqa-vs-kobani-terrorism-vs-revolution/
Thimmy...you get it. You make a critical point here. History is often written by the victors. Therefore, if a movement fails they could be considered terrorists.
DeleteThat's why the members of the Boston Tea Party are seen as revolutionaries, not terrorists. Good job.
Tamiia Anderson pd.1
ReplyDeleteWhen you compare terrorism and revolutions, they have so many characteristics in common: such as organizational structure, the methods used, political demands which are against the established order, having ideological ground to justify what (and how) they do. They organize themselves with “extreme secrecy and committing complex military-like activities”. Also, ideological commitment provides moral justification for terror against mostly international alienation and domestic repression. They might have a country of origin at fledging level but they can gradually organize themselves via transnational networks and disguised structure to secure their line of communications.
https://politicalreflectionmagazine.com/2018/10/08/raqqa-vs-kobani-terrorism-vs-revolution/
Ok. But you need to finish by answering the question, "Is One Man's Terrorist another man's freedom fighter?" (1/2 credit)
DeleteWhile researching I have looked through many different articles and I tried to read and understand what this quote meant from many different point of views. On one of the websites I found this quote saying " i will repeat again , the real problem of effective counter-terrorism is not a disagreement over definition. It is the persistence of conflict that breeds terrorism, it is an inadequate international efforts to ameliorate these conflicts as well as the deep partisanship associated with them leads to the justification of terrorism". -Ambassador Wilcox , from this quote and article it made me understand that it actually does happen and its not the best way to solve an issue. There is so much history behind this quote and i believe many go by it but its just not the best way to handle a situation. - carrie burgos
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfcg.org/Documents/CPRF/CPRFFeb2002.pdf
ok. good. but can you talk more about what this quote means to you?
DeleteThe idea that a terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is true. When you're in the victim position you see them as a terrorist but when you're on the other side you see the "terrorist" ass almost a savior to your oppression and pain. There is no justification for terrorism but it's all about perspective and putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Some of the countries that are thought to produce terrorists were and still are oppressed and they just want a fair chance of a normal life like everyone else, and to some the solution to getting their freedom is violence which is sometimes classified as terrorism. So when we call people terrorist the people from their country may see them as heroes. For example, when the U.S. bombed Japan during WW2 some people from America probably saw that as an act that simply ended the war, but the people who survived it and had to live the rest of their life with mutations probably saw the U.S. as a bunch of terrorists.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sc10882.doc.htm - sisco
It's true. One's perspective is very important. Depending on which side you're on, one's perspective is huge in how you interpret events.
DeleteI have not thought about the fact that some acts of terrorisms may be due to the fact that the people are opressed.
DeleteGerald Kosik Pd.3
i agree with you and I liked how you added information and facts
DeleteThe phrase of " Is one man's terrorist another mans freedom fighter" ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter that before outlining the basis for the judging the legitimacy.‘one man’ to consider the act freedom fighting for it to become such – and this ‘man’ can very well be the terrorist him or herself. The power of the slogan derives from its implicit. Perhaps if a freedom fighter can justly resort to terrorism, it is a necessary to provide which a working definition of terrorism without a prior of violating the Just War of criteria while also distinguishing it from the warfare.There are many similarities between terrorism and war; the most important being that they are both the continuation of the policy.
ReplyDelete-Lizbeth Perez
period 1
https://www.e-ir.info/2018/11/29/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/
Good point, but focus on the fact that not every terroristic act is not in the favor of freedom for the people
Delete- DEVAN JOHNSON
PD. 3
Ok. but what do YOU think? You reported good information but also answer, Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?
DeleteNot in every case. I think that in every terroristic act there is a specific reason or cause. In some cases yes one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter but not every terroristic act is to promote liberation or for any good cause. Such as ISIS or any other modern terrorist groups in countries like Iraq, Mexico, Afghanistan, or many others. So to answer your question, yes and no depending on the objective, cause, and effect of the terroristic act being made.
ReplyDelete- DEVAN JOHNSON
PD. 3
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060?journalCode=gppr20
Yes the objective, cause, and effect are very important in determining things.
Deletei feel like depending on the persons view of the terrorism they feel like they are truly making a difference and showing their expression on the matter to prove a point. The other side of the view is that they are terrified and see the terrorism as a sign for combat. The saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" can be viewed as two different scenarios it just would have to have a good argument to prove which you are trying to prove.
ReplyDelete-Johanna Hernandez Pd3
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060?journalCode=gppr20&
Ok. Anything you studied to make your point? 1/2 credit...
DeleteIt depends on the perceptive and why they are doing it
DeleteThe possibility that a terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is valid. At the point when you're in the casualty position you consider them to be a terrorist however when you're on the opposite side, you see the "terrorist" ass very nearly a hero to your persecution and torment. There is no defense for psychological oppression however it's everything about a point of view and imagining another person's perspective. A portion of the nations that are thought to create terrorists was and still are mistreated and they simply need a reasonable possibility of a typical life like every other person, and to some, the answer for getting their freedom is viciousness which is some of the time delegated psychological warfare. So when we call individuals terrorist the individuals from their nation may consider them to be saints. For instance, when the U.S. besieged Japan during WW2 a few people from America presumably considered that to be a demonstration that just finished the war, yet the individuals who endure it and needed to carry on with an amazing remainder with transformations most likely observed the U.S. as a lot of terrorists.
ReplyDelete- Elijah Pd 1
Great example to show that a terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. -Mekhi
DeleteGerald Kosik Pd.3
ReplyDeleteTerrorist is another mans freedom fighter is valid. When people hear the word terrorist people think about a evil person or a bad person who wants to hurt people but people don't think about the other view. Some people may view a terrorist as a hero or freedom fighter trying to stop oppression and fighting for what they believe. A perfect way to view this would be thinking of Robin Hood to the rich Robin Hood was a thief and criminal but to the poor he was a hero and savior. A lot can change depending on witch side your on.
Lee Edrington
ReplyDeleteI believe that to be the case because sometimes we get terrorism mixed up with retaliation. It's unlawful violence to enforce fear or intimidation against a group of people or thing. Revolutions are historical facts of life. Terrorism is also considered by the U.S government to be a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. Since we've described terrorism, we also have to describe what revolutions are in history. Although they are similar in the idea of terrorism in which they have a reasoning behind their actions, along with it being very violent, revolutions are never forgotten, since they have a lasting effect in society.
I like how you compared and contrasted terrorism and revolutions. -Mekhi
DeleteJerry Wrottoe Pd 1
ReplyDeleteTerrorism uses violence against a limited number of non-combatants or infrastructure to send a message to wider society and exploit fear of further violence. Even if the terrorists were to target infrastructure and issue bomb-warnings, for example, the violence of terrorism contains an implicit threat of further violence targeted at non-combatants,terror bombings were aimed at civilians. I believe terrorism is wrong in general.
terrorism is another mans freedom fighter is true. people have different points of views on topics like this and i feel as though there is neither a right nor wrong answer i think they act off of there fear
ReplyDelete