preview

Terrorists: Harmful Or Justified?

Good Essays

How quick America is to condemn the terrorist acts of other nations, yet on it’s own soil, it does little to eradicate the deep seeded hatred and the acts of domestic terror that occur within its own boundaries. America has been operating on hypocritical, double standard geopolitics since its founding as a superpower, and is constantly sticking its nose into foreign conflict and then is wholly shocked when it gets cut off, as if people like having their land raped by foreign supremacists and bombs dropped on their heads. And, all the while, as America is terrorizing them, Americans are appalled when they are met with resistance or retaliation from the other side. America, has been in this loop for decades, condemning terrorist actions abroad …show more content…

The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves happily accept. i.e. America. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil, they see themselves as rebels paving the way to a better future, protecting their values and their lives. So, then, what defines a victim? Are there any winners? They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, and using whatever means possible to achieve their goals. Sound familiar. Which is why, so often the stories are at odds; victims of terrorism see the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human lives, while the terrorist see themselves as a shining symbol of traditional values and freedom. The majority public’s view, however; is what defines a terrorist. Terrorists often try to foster a “Robin Hood” facade or image, in the hopes of swaying the majority of the public towards their goals. Towards their ideals. Sympathetic views towards terrorism act as the most integral part of a terrorist organizations psychological warfare, and despite being countered vigorously by the government and the media, if sympathy and support are sustainable, then terrorist organizations will continue to thrive. Terrorism is largely both tactic or strategy; crime or holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression or an inexcusable abomination. But doesn't it depend on those whose point of view is being expressed? So whose view matters? The people who write

Get Access