One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Warrior (Essay Sample)

In terms of specific description, terrorism remains one of the most challenging concepts in social sciences and sociology. Furthermore, the phrase is difficult to understand, explain, and anticipate in terms of producing a widely accepted and non-controversial definition. This is because modern-day terrorism and its perpetrators are always associated with negative social, political, partisan, emotional, and political undertones and issues (Al Jazeera, 2009). As a result, we may argue that in modern nations, terrorists and terrorism are universally vulnerable to the social construction of negative meaning. Furthermore, such social construction is almost identical to the universal negativity of words like crime and criminals, which is also socially built.
While some scientific observers and academics consider murderers and terrorists, others consider them freedom fighters, heroes, and revolutionaries. When categorizing terrorists, there is a certain amount of political and social duality. Such dualism is a fascinating variant of the experience of what some people see as domestic and war crimes are viewed as brave and noble deeds by others. Furthermore, various people or cultural groups may interpret the same notion as a poison and a remedy. Terrorists, for example, are defined in the West as persons who follow the Islamic religion and come from a particular ethnic group. Anyone carrying a gun in Iraq, for example, is considered a terrorist. Surprisingly, the West defines terrorism based on political considerations; hence the contemporary war on terrorism has been motivated
mainly by political gains.
Academics contend that acts of terrorism may be justified on moral grounds. They go on to say that revolt movements are still terrorism because they are carried out in a wrong way but for good reasons. Furthermore, the distinction between a freedom warrior and a terrorist is based on cultural perspectives rather than technical. Terrorism, like genocide, is compared to humanity's most despised activities because terrorists constantly create a situation of panic or dread.
These justifications for terrorists and terrorism are opposed to liberation or freedom-fighting movements, which attract mass support (Al Jazeera, 2009). As a result, we might see terrorism as a phrase that encompasses components of social incompatibility and moral depravity. Unlike terrorism, freedom fighters take society's ideals and people's safety into account. People's fundamental rights and liberties are protected by freedom fighters, whereas terrorists enslave and oppress people without regard for their rights. On the other hand, people's fundamental freedom is problematically reliant on personal views.
Consequently, terrorism and the battle for freedom are often fueled by our cultural biases. Terrorist organizations, unlike liberation fighters, are socially displaced and isolated from society. Furthermore, such organizations are defined not just by collective aggression but also by all forms of actions that they engage in, whether significant or minor. The fundamental reality is that the word terrorism is subject to a great deal of inquiry and discussion, not just about its meaning but also about different approaches to combat it.
Several academics contend that the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom warrior" confuses the behavior with the principal aim rather than serving as a guide to a worldwide definition. Furthermore, there are disagreements on how both phrases may be used interchangeably without altering their meaning. It calls attention to essential difficulties that should be examined while attempting to define the ideas of freedom fighting and terrorism. The current issue with the statement, it is fair to say, is the misunderstanding between the methods and purposes it includes.