“One man’s terrorist and another man’s freedom fighter” –
“Terrorist” is probably the dirtiest label of the last decade. It has also proven convenient for a number of uses:
1. instil fear in the populace
2. justify large military budgets
3. excuse extra-judicial assassinations
4. deflect attention from one’s actions to another’s
Following 9/11, the US and its “coalition of the willing” entered into a War on Terror. The so-called War on Terror conveniently served all of its uses.
As a means to instil fear, those who bandied about the terms terrorist and terrorism seldom took the time to make clear what the terms meant.
Is it terrorism if an enemy attacks a military organization, or does it apply only to attacks on civilians?
When the American military attacked the Iraq military, would that fit any definition of terrorism? Or would it apply only to the attacks on civilians?
Calling on the same logic, can the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon (military) be on a par with the attacks on the Trade Center (civilian)?
Can governments perform terrorist acts, or are they only performed by non-governmental groups? Can Israelis be considered terrorists when they attack Lebanon or Gaza or West Bank enclaves?
When these places are attacked, are the only terrorists non-governmental, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza or suicide bombers in the West Bank?
A woman whose son was killed said, “Israel took my home in Jaffa, now they come and kill us here, and they say WE are the terrorists.”
During the Algerian War of the 1950s, the Arab nationalist guerrilla insurgency won the title of “anti-colonial freedom fighters” while the French government, military and settlers were branded “torturers” and “terrorists”.
Do acts of terrorism apply only during peacetime? Or are they applicable during wartime? The activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan have both been referred to as wars.
Does it matter if an act called “terrorism” is done for a good cause? Does it matter if those performing the acts have been oppressed or prevented from enjoying their fundamental human rights?
Ironically, who are the “terrorists” and who are “freedom fighters” have yet to be determined in the US war on terror.
It’s important to consider these questions very carefully before labelling anyone or members of any group, simply by virtue of their membership, as terrorists.
What some governments, particularly the United States and Israel, call terrorists, others have called resistance movements. Their members have also been called “freedom fighters”.
According to Wikipedia, “a resistance movement is a group or collection of individual groups, dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country…”
During the Cold War the term freedom fighter was used by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union.
Rebels against the Soviet Union were never called terrorists. Clearly, the distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is nothing more than political labeling.
According to John Farmer, writing for the New York Times this week, “several federal officials warned that “home-grown terrorists” represent the nation’s greatest emerging threat.”
Robert Mueller, FBI chief has said that Al Qaeda “has looked to recruit Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures.”
This has led Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security, to conclude that “homeland security begins with hometown security.” And hometown security begins with locally based observations of “suspicious” activity.
Can “home-grown terrorists” be “freedom fighters” as well? Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Big brother is watching you.
Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.
PAUL BALLES: The Israeli-US love affair
When you have people incharge of US Homeland Security, whose loyatly rests with Israel Lobby instead of the US Constitution – how Americans could feel themselves secure from foreign-sponsored home-grown terrorism?
Janet Napolitano is a lessbian with close link to AIPAC. Her predecessor Michael Chertoff is a hardcore Jew Zionist and ‘Israel-Firster’. As a Federal Judge in the aftermath of 9/11 – he let free several Israeli Jews arrested on charges of being involved in the attacks. He is now marketing Israeli airport scanning devices in the US, Canada and several European countries.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/spies-in-the-room/
Terrorist is someone trying to achieve his/her goals by terrifying others.
Certainly, you can support one terrorists (if they fight for what you believe is right) and fight against others (if they are against you). In the first case you would call them “freedom fighters” as it bears positive connotation, and you would call enemies “terrorists”. What’s the problem with this? I think it is very reasonable.
And subjective, of course. If the whole country needs to decide who is enemy and who is friend, it becomes problematic. Hence all this stuff with Congress, President, etc. That’s the way people of the USA agree to make common decisions. Like it or not. If not – you have quite a lot of options to change it.
Soviet rulers: yes, I think they were terrorists almost all the way, starting from terror, and never be able to achieve their goal without making their people fear “the others”. Did they bring any only bad things – certainly not. Would it be better if they were not terrorists – depends on what you believe. I believe it could be better, or could be worse (e.g., if replaced by anarchy).
Were rulers of Medieval Europe terrorists – I am sure most of them were. And many relied on the church (powered by the sword) to impose fear. Look at terrifying creatures looking on you from Gothic churches – are they there to bring joy?
Even your boss may be a terrorist – if he/she has power over you and exercises it. Luckily, you are protected by law and this happens much less than before.
People make these laws to fight terrorism, even at the workplace. This means they do not like terrorism, whoever it is aimed at.
Are Hamas and Fatah fighters terrorists? Oh, yes, they are, by their own definition. The constantly say they want to terrify Jews to flee from Israel. They also constantly terrify their own citizens (look what happens when there is a break at the war with Israel; and many Arabs were killed by Arabs during the first “intifada”). And this is what you often hear from Palestine Arabs – they are very much afraid of being accused of collaboration with Israel, and you do not need much (or any at all) evidence for that.
Is Israeli state terroristic? Come to Israel, try to find who is afraid of what there. The deepest fears I heard from Israeli Arabs were whether they will be able to find top salary jobs in high-tech industry, whether they can build house large enough for their family.
Does the State of Israel bring fear to the Palestinian Arabs – I guess it often does. The same way as suicide bombers and rocket launcher bring fear to Israeli citizens (including Arabs, of course). There is war between these two neighbors. Each side fears the other.
Does the State of Israel aim to bring fear to Palestinian civilians – I believe not. It all the time warns them before there is military action, sends its soldiers for very dangerous land missions instead of massive air strikes.
If you do not believe these, you may say Israel employs terroristic tactics in the war. But learn the facts before you do. Come to Israel and try to understand if this people would employ terroristic tactics. You would be surprised.