DC - Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

Posted: 18 years ago

Hello everyone and welcome to the Debate Mansion's Debating Championship competition.

The topic :" Is one Countries Terrorist another Countries freedom fighter ?"

Let me introduce the Contestants to you...

Arguing FOR the topic are: 

Heart girl

Ms.BholiBhali

Mist

Arguing AGAINST the topic are:

Paki Princez

Jasunap

MKZara

Before we begin, let me reiterate the rules for this debate. Contestants are advised to make themselves familiar with the rules:

Rules for the Debating Championship


1)To abide by the rules of FAQ and post:"Important to all members of DM ".Please do read the 2 posts before starting the debate .

2)The opening argument will be given by Paki Princez who is speaking against the motion . It will be followed by a member who will argue against the motion and the debate will begin . Please wait for Paki Princez to start the debate before posting opposing argument.

3) Please recognise the members on your side of the team and only debate against the opposing team .

4) After the completion of 48 hours , the post will be locked and no further comments can be added or erased .

5) Only the contestants may particpate and post to this debate . Any other comments will be deleted by the Development team.

Date of the debating championship -4/5th February (Saturday evening/Sunday morning)2006 -


Time : At 9:30 P.M U.S (Eastern time )/ 8:00 A.M India time.

The Competition will last 48 hours , giving enough time for all particpants to respond from different time zones .


Special Thanks to Aparna_BD and samie for organizing this debate.

I would like to wish all the contestants the best of luck! May the best debator win!

NOTE: This topic is locked for the moment. It will be reopened by Aparna_BD in time for the debate at 9.30 PM EST/ 8.00 AM IST



Posted: 18 years ago

Hi everyone....sorry to start off a whole half hour after the time...its ok...now we have 47.5 hrs😆

Is one Countries Terrorist another Countries freedom fighter?

 

The plane and simple answer to that is NO!

 

What is a terrorist? It's someone who causes destructions and kills; basically someone who enjoys violence. This statement alone is strong enough to say that the person is NOT a freedom fighter for anyone. A terrorist is a terrorist no matter where he goes. If a person has the guts to kill innocent people and consider it "honorable" then that person is disgusting and he does not have the power to fight for anyone's freedom-not even his own. He can claim to be fighting for the sake of his "country" or "religion" but it is the person's personal fetish of killing people. There is nothing good about killing people and a terrorist's actions cannot be justified by even his own countrymen.

 

Posted: 18 years ago
I Disagree!!! A person who has the guts to kill someone is not a terrorist..hez a Guerilla

Acoording to William Golding human being is a "beast" meaning that we have a evil nature..meaning evry1 has the capacity to kill somebody ..to murder somebody...does that mean we are all terrorists? no!!!

Acoording to the UN terrorism is described as " criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

u c the keypoint is that it is politically motivated..doesn't that make those so called terrorists freedom fighters in the eyes of their countrymen coz govt is wid them .therefore it means that evry soldier is a terrorist in the eyes of other countries and freedom fighter in the eyes of thier own country... for eg.. Indian Army soldiers are termed as evil by Pakistanis(ok i got this from india pakistan debate plz don take it personally) whereas for Indians they are fighting for thier own countryz area..and the vice versa is wid Pakistani Militants/soldiers(wat eva term is suitable)
Posted: 18 years ago

Originally posted by heart girl


I Disagree!!! A person who has the guts to kill someone is not a terrorist..hez a Guerilla

Acoording to William Golding human being is a "beast" meaning that we have a evil nature..meaning evry1 has the capacity to kill somebody ..to murder somebody...does that mean we are all terrorists? no!!!

[/quote]

but we dont carry out our emotions/feelings/anger or whatever else you want to call it. ok people may be able to kill but most sane people wont. sure i can stab a person with a knife or shoot someone and they are dead..but i would never do such a thing and neither would you. just because someone might be capable of doing something dusnt mean that they carry it out.

Posted: 18 years ago

Originally posted by ~PaKi*PrInCeZ~


Posted: 18 years ago
Also arnt Americans Soldiers in Iraq terrorists?? they were killing people rite?? so accordig to you the person who kills someone is disgusting and shoulb termed as terrorists rite??

Yes Americans had suffered a lot in the 9/11 attack and (sry i made a mistake first now i m editing it.. they attacked Iraq coz they Saddam was building weapons of masss destruction)  What will those American Soldiers b called by Iraqis?? Terrorists ! Nothing Else! but if we look at the other side arnt those soldiers fighting for thier nation?? rnt politicians involved in this ??? yes they are fighting for thier countries but Iraqis mite call them terrorrists nd i think looking at results of American attack.. rnt those ppl suffering??.. rnt they terrorised in a sense?? coz they don noe how many days r u gonna b alive.. u dont know wen a bomb is gonna b dropped on u and u are no more.. isnt this terrorism? But no! According to America those Soldiers are fighting for thier nation!!!! And the result is in front of our eyes.. Bush has bn Re-elected. y?? Coz Americam ppl think wateva he has done is rite and they r proud of those ppl who gave thier lives in the war of Iraq.. u c?? Now arnt they fighting for thier nation?? Edited by heart girl - 18 years ago
Posted: 18 years ago
Originally posted by heart girl


Also arnt Americans Soldiers in Iraq terrorists?? they were killing people rite?? so accordig to you the person who kills someone is disgusting and shoulb termed as terrorists rite?? [/quote]

yes they should be considered terrorists

That is wrong...and the soldiers in Iraq are considered terrorists (by me) because they basically invaded another country and started a war with them. the war with Iraq was America's and Bush's stupidity. those soldiers CANNOT be titled as freedom fighters bucause what they are doing to the people of Iraq is not bringing the American's freedom...it does'nt have any effect on us. I dont know y they went to war...The war with Iraq was just an excuse to invade Iraq's oil supply and Bush wanted to avenge his dad's failure during the gulf war.

 

Posted: 18 years ago
As heart girl u said that terrorism is politically motivated. I agree with that but a terrorist act is a terrorist act is a terrorist act. A terrorist is not someone who fights for a cause but someone who will hurt someone for a cause. A terrorist is not someone who is fighting to gain something for people or for himself but a terrorist is someone who doesnt care about others and is willing to kill someone innocent for their cause. There are certain things in this world that all human beings have a right to ,the main one is life. A terrorist is someone who is willing to take that away from someone innocent for a cause. U r right that some people will call someone fighting against them a terrorist but just because someone is fighting against u they dont become a terrorist. Someone who kills civilians and doesn't care about the fact that they dont have any linkage to anyone is a terrorist not a soldier, even a soldier who kills someone innocent is a terrorist. Two soldiers on opposite sides, fighting each other for different causes r not terrorists even though they r causing pain to the each other. An american soldier who might be killing an iraqi militant is not a terrorist but an american soldier killing an innocent man or woman is a terrorist. An iraqi soldier truly and honorably fighting to save his country is not a terrorist but an iraqi soldier kidnapping a foreigner and beheading them is a terrorist. When people fight with honor they r not terrorist when people fight with emotions they r not terrorists but when they fight to hurt people or just to win they r terrorists. War doesn't change the rules about not hurting someone who is innocent and people who dont follow these rules r terrorists. People who r willing to hurt someone without a fault for a cause r terrorists. A cause is usually a great thing to have but to fulfill it by killing innocents makes u a terrorist no matter who u r and no matter how honorable ur cause is. Terrorists r the same for everyone people just dont realize it. An act that is wrong against one is wrong against another. Taking away the life of an innocent no matter who u r, or where u r from, what ur cause is makes u a terrorist. Edited by mkzara - 18 years ago
Posted: 18 years ago
Originally posted by ~PaKi*PrInCeZ~


That is wrong...and the soldiers in Iraq are considered terrorists (by me) because they basically invaded another country and started a war with them. the war with Iraq was America's and Bush's stupidity. those soldiers CANNOT be titled as freedom fighters bucause what they are doing to the people of Iraq is not bringing the American's freedom...it does'nt have any effect on us. I dont know y they went to war...The war with Iraq was just an excuse to invade Iraq's oil supply and Bush wanted to avenge his dad's failure during the gulf war.

Ok thatz ur viewpoint that u consider them terrorrists But look at what the majority of American population thinks..They are appreciating bush's actions thatz y he is relected... Yes its bringing America freedom how?? Saddam captured.. wudnt u wana jst simply kill that person who had been torturing his citizens in his own country?? Saddam was a dictator..hadnt he created terror in the minds of people..imagine living under the rule of dictator--have dictators ever bn proved useful for a country no! they have always bn destructive..  Its not bringing "America any freedom' but its bringing this World freedom from the hands of those Brutal dictators who have always used disgusting ideas to rule over people and have denied the fundamental rights to a human being.. Iraqis were living a life of Slaves and US have saved them from Saddam but on the other side they have destroying the country as if they r gonna pay for the development.. Moreover, don u think the weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was building wud have created more terror in this world if he tried to use it? mayb this world wud have ended -- Ppl of Hiroshima nd Nagasaki are still suffering from the ww2 attack.. now tell me arnt they fighting for the freedom of these people who are leading a life slaves..

I think being a permanent member of UN, Us had taken the rite step but he was TOTALLy rong in destroying the whole country in search of One person...

Posted: 18 years ago
at the outset i would like to quote the meaning of the word 'terrorism.' as given in the Chambers twentieth century dictionary "an organised system of intimidation, instilling extreme fear" a terrorist is a person who indulges in the organised system of intimidation and instills this extreme fear.

so by and large a terrorist usually has vested interests and is usually in search of personal glory. terrorism is an act that should be condemned most emphatically cos all it manages, is to breed fear and subservience. a terrorist in one country will remain a terrorist in any country. the land does not make a difference. he that is named a martyr after being deemed a terrorist is usually one who rallies people to fight for their freedom/independance etc. he rallies people through the power of speech and not by pointing a gun.

take for instance bhagat singh. he is today deemed as a martyr by the indians while he was called a terrorist by the whites. bhagat singh is a martyr becos he fought with the people who tried and conquered his land and then inflicted harsh acts on the natives. he did not threaten or kill the natives who worked for the whites. he rallied them around without using undue influence of weapons and brought them together to fight a battle for his land. he is therefore known as a martyr. he inspired the natives to get together and chase the interloper away.

on the other hand osama bin laden is called a terrorist becos he is supposed to have brought down the twin towers, full of people who lived a routine daily life. his bringing the towers down was just to prove a point to america, and it was a mindless act of violence which took away thousands of innocent lives totally unconnected with whatever osama was trying to prove. no amount of arguement can justify this evil doing. this is terrorism.

heart girl says above paki soldiers fighting indian soldiers will be deemed as terrorist by the indians. i beg to differ. a soldier fights a battle in the field. an organised war. he fights and kills others who are similarly equipped in armoury and weaponry. he joins the army or armed forces out of his own free will and not out of fear or coercion. he does not walk into a village and set it on fire killing innocent people and having the intention of wiping out a village. if his intension is to wipe out innocent people unrelated to the cause, only becos they belong to the enemy camp, then he is nothing more than a sorry, depraved and a sick human being. but if he organises a group and instils fear in the minds and heart of the innocent people, then he is nothing less than a evil megalomaniacal terrorist.

heartgirl also makes a reference to the american soldiers in iraq. now american soldiers in iraq or vietnam, their govt did not tell them to strip the enemy soldiers and parade them naked or inflict demeaning acts of shame on them. here this is not organised. this is not teamwork. this has been done by sadistic, depraved, deranged perverts who wanted to play god (or maybe satan)on the POWs and other innocent people. this is depravity of sorts.

therefore i insist once a terrorist, there is no way he is going to be deemed as anything else in another country. osama is called a terrorist in india and in the us and in the uk and definitely in the afghan region as well. but mohd jinnah who wanted a separate state and sought to split from india is not deemed as a terrorist anywhere in the world not even in india. there may be varied opinions about mr jinnah, but by no long shot is he considered a terrorist.


Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

8 Participants 31 Replies 3767Views

Topic started by Morgoth

Last replied by Aparna_BD

loader
loader
up-open TOP