Polsci212(10256)

Name: Cecil C. Asis AB POSLCI-2

Assignment: Critique on the aphorisms

1. “ One Person’s Terrorist is another Person’s Freedom Fighter”

I don’t think the statement “ One Person’s Terrorist is another Person’s Freedom
Fighter” is true, it doesn’t work especially to the modern terrorists. What may be true is
that sometimes freedom fighters are called terrorists, and that very often, terrorists
claim to be freedom fighters. But to combine these two different words is not suitable.
A terrorist is a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a freedom fighter. Terrorists used to
strike fear to the people with random attacks while freedom fighter used to fight for
freedom. A freedom fighter fights to have an establishment to create a better social
harmony, better economic growth, better education and healthcare and a better future
well being of the country. While a terrorist wants to establish a new rule so as to have
more power over the people living.

2. “ One Man willing to throw away his life is enough to Terrorize a Thousand”
Wu Chi, a Chinese military philosopher states that “ One Man willing to throw
away his life is enough to Terrorize a Thousand” explains the need of a motivated
person who is prepared to put himself at danger when committing an act of violence.
They contend that the selfless use of lethal force combined with precise timing and a
noble goal is a priceless weapon of war. It was also a clear-cut strategy for a small party
that is outnumbered by a more formidable opponent.

3. “ Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice”

The statement of Barry Goldwater who’s an American politician, which is “
Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice” would mean or indicate a firm conviction in
a cause's unquestionable rightness. It describes that as a firm conviction that good
triumphs over evil and the idea that the ends justify the means. One can completely
comprehend how the term lends itself to justifying unwavering loyalty to the cause if
one simply substitutes any purpose for the word liberty. Terrorists utilize this
justification to support their conviction that they are protecting their championed
interest from any and all enemies who they see to be bad.
4. “ It became Necessary to destroy the Town to Save it”
A US major described the decision to use massive amounts of firepower in the
Vietnam war in a statement “It became Necessary to destroy the Town to Save it”.
Terrorists use this kind of reasoning to justify hardships that they impose not only on a
perceived enemy but also on their own favored group. This statement is applicable to
the soldiers in crucial situations when protecting such city. This explains how sometimes
decisions like this is how to limit collateral damage when fighting in cities. When faced
with major urban combat to reclaim an occupied city, general purpose military units and
soldiers attempt to adapt tools and tactics designed for other environments to save the
majority. It may be sad to accept but there are situations that can’t be control and so in
order to save the majority there need to be an instant solution even if it means
sacrificing others. Because the fact, that they came to a decision where it becomes
necessary to destroy a city to save it, must’ve been a tough decision but highlights the
destructive tactics that have almost always been required to liberate a city from enemy
forces that choose to defend in urban areas.