Critically discuss the claim that ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s
terrorist’
Terrorism can be defined as action that is ‘intended to cause death or serious bodily
harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to
abstain from doing any act’ (UN, 2004). The claim ‘one man’s freedom fighter is
another man’s terrorist’ suggests there are two definitions to violence, one
representing resistance and liberty, and another interpreted as chaotic and brutal. In
this essay I will be critically discussing this claim.
Terrorism is not a new concept; it has been around for years. The case of Jewish
zealots who attacked Romans and Jews in first century Palestine (Horsley 1979), and
the French revolution of the 1790s. Coming into the 20th century, revolutionary
terrorism was on the rise as we saw groups such as German Red Army Faction, the
red brigades in Italy and the Basque separatist group all committing crimes known to
be under the scope of terrorism (Sanchez 2019). The 21st century saw a transformation
in the security priorities of many western states, placing terrorism as the most
important security issue. As a result of 9/11, the spectre of ‘Islamic’ terrorism started
to emerge, resulting in the ‘War on Terror’ that the US and allies embarked upon.
Islamic terrorism is supposedly motivated by a deep hatred for the west, portrayed as
anti-modern and anti-democratic.
The linkage between Islam and terrorism is an expression of orientalism, deliberately
misinterpreting traditions and priorities of Muslims living in the Middle East.
Muslims and Arabs viewed the War on Terror as a crusade on Islam, the West
attacking their religion. Believing it to be no different from crusades from the West in
their history, which leads to the concept of a ‘good terrorist’ and a ‘bad terrorist’ –
groups associated with terrorist attacks such as the IRA and Hamas, simultaneously
engage in legal nonviolent activities compared to the most prominent terrorist groups
in the world such as Shining Path and the FARC who believe themselves to be
freedom fighters (Lafree 2018), yet depend on these groups to push their personal
, political agenda. Terrorist and freedom fighter go hand in hand when it comes to
violence, killing and war.
The idea of being a freedom fighter sparks connotations of fighting to something
that’s right, freedom suggests captivity and needing to get out. A radio address in
1986 made by United States President, Ronald Reagan said ‘freedom fighters do not
need to terrorize a population into submission’. This was his definition is attempting
to distinct freedom fighting from terrorism. The Just War theory states that war is
justifiable through a certain level of criteria. The idea of freedom fighters uses the just
war theory to legitimize their acts (Crawford 2003) The IRA, for example, define
themselves as ‘a small nation fighting for freedom can only hope to defeat an
oppressor or occupying power by means of guerrilla warfare’ (Oppenheimer 2008).
The IRA’s political agenda has always been to unify Ireland into a single Irish Free
State and while they themselves accept the term ‘freedom fighter’ in their nationalist
community, the British government had assessed their actions in which they
disapproved of were ‘terrorist acts’ (Fritz 2021). Terrorism is contradictory to the just
war theory, the term is applied to politically motivated acts of violence in which we
disapprove of, which is not always the same for everyone. Thus, proving the claim
that ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’.
The reasons for why people may want to start freedom fighting span from financial
incentives, escaping from the law in their home country, to a desire to fight.
In Syria, the fighters’ principal motivation was a desire for vengeance against Assad
for the crimes he committed against Syrians and, in some cases, against them
personally. Even the tiniest divergence from the group's core purpose resulted in
conflict amongst fighters and their commanders. As in previous civil wars, many
warriors defected from their organisations when they felt that their commanders'
affiliations or inclinations had shifted (Mironova 2019). The adversary is aware of the
fighters' high motivation, which the Assad administration used effectively and
strategically. For fighters, the objective and accompanying emotions are so important
that they sometimes lose their ability to make reasonable decisions in pursuit of it.
Even commanders found it difficult to slow down warriors for strategic reasons when
they made their decision to battle. They get involved in armed combat because they
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sanamahmood2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.