One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Hero...

Well, I am not a pacifist by any definition. I also have a well defined view of what a terrorist is also. The people who have been attacking our embassies, bases, and interests over the last several decades, and the people who attacked us on 9-11, and on all of the previous occasions in order to try and change our foreign policy, and all of the other excuses they have come up with over the years... these are terrorists. These are also the same people that we are fighting in Afghanistan and in Iraq. These are people who like to strike from hiding, and then blend into the crowd in order to escape. They are nothing more than cowards who kill innocent civilians and children in order to cause terror and try to influence whatever government they are targeting at the time. Then there was the Iran hostage crises in the late seventies that abruptly ended when Reagan took office. These are the terrorists, although there are certain individuals who like to call them freedom fighters. These people do not believe in freedom, they believe in slavery and subjugation, they believe in world domination and in controlling every aspect of peoples lives and having you pray to Allah 5 times a day. I believe in doing whatever it takes to ensure that the US does not fall under the control of these mad dog cultists, despite what any lying liberal looney apologist for these people would try to have us believe. America needs to wake up, and we had best be quick about it, because we are being infiltrated just as France, the UK, and most of the rest of Europe is.

Hi Parated2k,It is very difficult to be remain nutral, one person will always get aligned ith other either accepting other as hero or terrorist. It is all in mind how you think if you like is views than he will be hero , if your against or dislikes his views than he will be terrorist.

Aligning myself against those who plan and carry out terrorists attacks does not make me a terrorist. The definition of terrorist is not ambiguous and certainly will not be confused with hero. If you think they are the same, then please don't visit the U.S. djbtol

What that phrase means is a person will choose one of those terms based on their already-existing perspective. Someone outside the conflict (if he can look at it objectively) can see how both terms might apply to either side. If he has a sympathy for one side, he'll use positive terms for that side while using the negative terms for the other.

Truth be told, there is no gray area. A Terrorist is one who attacks innocent people (civilians, unarmed children, UN medical workers) for whatever cause. A Hero is someone who goes beyond their expected station in life to help a fellow human. The "blur" is created by the media. Let's use an IED in Iraq as an example... This is NOT an act of terrorism! To defend one's homeland from armed foreign invaders is NOT the same as igniting a body-bomb in a shopping market. It might not be politically correct to point that out, but nobody ever accused me of that! What if your country was invaded, for whatever reason... Is it ok for armed soldiers to rip through your house? Lock up all the "fighting aged" males? no line at all

It's very easy to distance yourself from someone's actions and absently state that, "Well, they're someone else's hero, it's all objective". We see it every day in the Palestinian territories - I was absolutely heart broken watching what little bit of "To Die in Jerusalem" I did last night, because the Palestinians absolutely refused to accept any responsibility for any of their downright evil. The "martyr operations" they so casually referred to came up several times in a discussion - and the Palestinians were careful to punctuate that they could EMPATHIZE with Israeli mothers, but they had no pity because they had it coming. There is an absolute negligence of responsibility for what they've done and continue to do. Throwing people from balconies, tossing rockets into kindergartens, sawing the heads off of innocents, the terrorist factions don't feel that they need to be held responsible for any of this, because they never would've been "pushed to it" if it weren't for the West. Because the West created a scenario where this was an opportunity, it isn't wrong. Well I tell you what - it is wrong, and as long as one wants to blithely call a terrorist their hero, they too, are a terrorist.

I agree. A real pacifist remains neutral.He or she can see both sides and doesn't side with either. And who is a terrorist and who isn't all depends on your point of view. To The British in 1775-1776, the Americans were terrorists.To the French loyal to the crown, Napoleon and the other Revolutionists were terrorists.So what we see as terrorism other can view as heroes.

i totally agree with you... about taking side but not about pacifist... i think there are people who just dont care at all. but not to care serves the status quo therefore, it means that unknowingly and inevitably he or she still took side.