The ‘One man’s terrorist…’-cliché challenges the notion that ‘terrorism’ and ‘freedom fighting’ are mutually exclusive concepts where the former is always illegitimate. The extreme nature of situations where this would be permissible, however, makes it doubtful as to whether the threshold is ever reached in practice. Thus, in sum, this essay does not share Reagan’s position, arguing instead that terrorists can justifiably be considered freedom fighters, and – conversely – that freedom fighters can justifiably resort to terrorism. The essay’s third part discusses if this can ever be the case, and finds that terrorism can be permissible in so-called ‘extreme emergencies’ (Walzer 1977:251-268). For terrorism to be a legitimate form of freedom fighting, then, it too would have to be justifiable in certain situations.
One of the essay’s key assumptions is that freedom fighting can be justified, provided it adheres to the Just War-criteria. In contrast, the violence or the threat of violence used in war seeks to dominate the enemy through force. It argues terrorism is distinct from these latter forms of political violence because it is primarily a form of communication aimed at terrorising non-combatants. Part two discusses and defines terrorism as a concept, emphasising in particular how it differs from war – whether conventional or unconventional.
#Freedom fighters how to
This essay offers a critical exploration of his attempt, asking: can a terrorist justifiably and objectively be considered a freedom fighter? The essay begins with an overview of how to understand the slogan ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, before outlining the basis for judging the legitimacy of political violence: Just War Theory. By this, he tried to draw a clear line between the concepts ‘freedom fighter’ and ‘terrorist’. President Ronald Reagan told the American people in a 1986 Radio Address to the Nation. “Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission,” former U.S.