|
- Is “One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s 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
- One man’s freedom fighter… can we ever define terrorism?
We all know one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; or in some cases, one man’s terrorist is another’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize The use of the
- Defining Terrorism: Is One Mans Terrorist another Mans Freedom . . .
Most researchers tend to believe that an objective and internationally accepted definition of terrorism can never be agreed upon; after all, they say, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter '
- Who said one mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary?
The quote is another version of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" first written by Gerald Seymour in his 1975 book Harry's Game
- On Terrorists and Freedom Fighters - Harvard Law Review
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, the slogan holds; a credo that rings a broad truth, yet falls short of qualifying how race and racism dictate how these labels are politically imagined, then practically and legally assigned
- BBC - History - The Changing Faces of Terrorism
The oft-repeated statement 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' reflects genuine doubts about what constitutes 'terrorism' Sir Adam Roberts surveys the
- One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter: The . . . - NAOC
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” The increasingly popular phrase seems simple, but its complexity is undoubtedly the source behind the failure of the international community to agree on a definition of terrorism
- One Mans Terrorist is Another Mans Freedom Fighter
The idea that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' has led to the erroneous conclusion that defining terrorism is, in the final analysis, a subjective activity about assigning negative connotations to one's opponents and positive connotations to one's proponents
|
|
|