Terrorism is, as defined by our society today, a strategy that explicitly targets innocent civilians. Freedom Fighting, on the other hand, is a strategy that targets those oppressing civilians and forbidding freedoms. By definition, these are two very different things. Now, some may try to convince you that depending upon whose perspective you look through, who is considered the target shifts. While this may on some occasions be true, overall, the two are quite different. In both situations civilians are killed, but in this case, it is not the ends that matter, but rather the means - and the intentions.
Say Al-Qaeda hijacked a plane and flew it into the World Trade Center (oh wait...); this obviously constitutes an act of terrorism as it was unprovoked and unpredicted (can we for the sake of the argument hold all comments disputing this for the time being?). The U.S. is on the opposite side of the world and is certainly not oppressing the freedoms of those people associated with Al-Qaeda. A Freedom Fighter's attack is not a random act of violence, but a reasoned yet passionate response to injustice or tyrrany. Even considering this situation from Al-Qaeda's point of view - the U.S. may have upset them with their opinions, but as far as action, there is no rational explanation.
Since terrorist are in no way freedom fighters, there are no obscure implications. the two are different and thus should be treated as such.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Autumn, I would contest your position that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorist is intention. Osama Bin Laden's reason for attacking the US for him were a US presence in Saudia Arabia and US policy towards Palestine and Iraq (see http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/2994056.html). No one attacks without a reason, there has to be a provocation. In this case, though indirect, the US did provoke, in his eyes, Bin Laden. Without this justification, how could Bin Laden recruite his enactor?
Post a Comment