Freedom Fighter and Terrorist
Freedom fighters and Terrorists
Whether a militant can be called a freedom fighter or a terrorist depends on the purpose and mode his action in killing people. Some people, like soldiers in a battlefield, whose duty is to kill is neither a freedom fighter nor a terrorist. But those who have not been assigned any such duty by the government but kills humans, may be called either ‘terrorist’ or ‘freedom fighters’. Now, who should be called which, will probably be disputed.
According to my judgment and understanding, any person killing ‘opponents’ where the opponent is responsible for the subjugation of his people or suppression of a cause may be called a ‘freedom fighter’. And a person who kills people who are innocent, are not involved with the powers that subjugates or oppresses his people, or negates a cause for which he is supposed to be fighting, should be called a terrorist.
Of course, the differentiation is subjective, because there can be a debate on what can justifiably be called ‘subjugation’, ‘suppression’ and ‘cause’.
For example, whereas the attack of USA on Afghanistan and the killings could not be called a ‘terrorist’ action, because they were ‘punishing’ Afghanistan for providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden or for making a bid to find or kill Osama, who, again was supposed, assumed or alleged to have caused the 9/11 attack, the attack on Iraq was a ‘terrorist action’ because there was apparently no such cause for the attack, and the people killed did not commit any crime, or were not at all responsible for the 9/11 attack. The people were killed without any justification. What is happening now in Iraq is largely terrorist activity; (actually Iraq was not a terrorist state; and only after USA’s action that a Pandora’s box of terrorist activity opened up). I said ‘largely’ because, when an Iraqi kills a soldier of the American force of occupation, it is a fight for freedom, because every Iraqi has the right to kill any member of a foreign occupation force. I know it is a highly debatable point.
In our childhood, when India was fighting for freedom from British rule, there was a section of “freedom fighter” who took recourse to armed struggle. But their aim was to kill only the members of the British administration, and not the innocent citizens. So, we used to call them ‘freedom fighters’. The British government (of occupation), of course, called them ‘terrorists’ and ‘anarchists’. But it is a fact that they never created any fear among the people.
About the same time there were two wars: one was to free the settlers in America from the yoke of British rule, and the other was a war between the American government and the Confederate forces of the South. This was a civil war, but a war all the same. Many died on both sides. But no was said that there was any act of terrorism, because the innocent people were not killed. But in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Jammu and Kashmir and in Bombay blasts, to cite a few examples, it is all terrorist act; because as I repeatedly said, the people being killed are innocent people.
Any comments?
Whether a militant can be called a freedom fighter or a terrorist depends on the purpose and mode his action in killing people. Some people, like soldiers in a battlefield, whose duty is to kill is neither a freedom fighter nor a terrorist. But those who have not been assigned any such duty by the government but kills humans, may be called either ‘terrorist’ or ‘freedom fighters’. Now, who should be called which, will probably be disputed.
According to my judgment and understanding, any person killing ‘opponents’ where the opponent is responsible for the subjugation of his people or suppression of a cause may be called a ‘freedom fighter’. And a person who kills people who are innocent, are not involved with the powers that subjugates or oppresses his people, or negates a cause for which he is supposed to be fighting, should be called a terrorist.
Of course, the differentiation is subjective, because there can be a debate on what can justifiably be called ‘subjugation’, ‘suppression’ and ‘cause’.
For example, whereas the attack of USA on Afghanistan and the killings could not be called a ‘terrorist’ action, because they were ‘punishing’ Afghanistan for providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden or for making a bid to find or kill Osama, who, again was supposed, assumed or alleged to have caused the 9/11 attack, the attack on Iraq was a ‘terrorist action’ because there was apparently no such cause for the attack, and the people killed did not commit any crime, or were not at all responsible for the 9/11 attack. The people were killed without any justification. What is happening now in Iraq is largely terrorist activity; (actually Iraq was not a terrorist state; and only after USA’s action that a Pandora’s box of terrorist activity opened up). I said ‘largely’ because, when an Iraqi kills a soldier of the American force of occupation, it is a fight for freedom, because every Iraqi has the right to kill any member of a foreign occupation force. I know it is a highly debatable point.
In our childhood, when India was fighting for freedom from British rule, there was a section of “freedom fighter” who took recourse to armed struggle. But their aim was to kill only the members of the British administration, and not the innocent citizens. So, we used to call them ‘freedom fighters’. The British government (of occupation), of course, called them ‘terrorists’ and ‘anarchists’. But it is a fact that they never created any fear among the people.
About the same time there were two wars: one was to free the settlers in America from the yoke of British rule, and the other was a war between the American government and the Confederate forces of the South. This was a civil war, but a war all the same. Many died on both sides. But no was said that there was any act of terrorism, because the innocent people were not killed. But in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Jammu and Kashmir and in Bombay blasts, to cite a few examples, it is all terrorist act; because as I repeatedly said, the people being killed are innocent people.
Any comments?
posted by SENsible at 12:17 pm
2 Comments:
Comment from Nilanjan Sen
"There are no freedom fighters. There are no terrorists.
There is only a fight for a cause in which a person believes. Whether that fight will be classed as Freedom Struggle or Terrorist Activity will depend on who wins.
History is written by the victors.
And in the meantime, the Holy Trinity watches benignly"
Most of the killing in Iraq is being done by Iraqis. Most of the killed in Iraq are Iraqis as well. How are Americans terrorists here? American MASH hospitals treat Iraqi victims much more often than US soldiers. American soldiers actively put themselves in harms way to adhere to the rules of engagement and to avoid harming civilians. Do atrocities happen -- yes inspite of all this. When one has to make a split second decision about whether this 16 year old boy with a gun is friend or foe mistakes happen. When one is afraid of getting blown up then that stress gets people to do strange things. But these are not the norm for our American troops.
Should America have attacked Iraq and unleashed all this? -- who knows! Inspite of 20/20 hindsight among leftists who claim this wonderful moral high ground Saddam had connections with terrorists, he had given shelter to Abu Nidal, he had gassed children, Iranians, Kurds, Shias etc..etc... not to mention that by refusing inspectors at that time Saddam acted like he had WMD's. There are others like him though -- so did America have a moral right to atack Iraq?
This moral question presupposes that there is such a thing a moral war. In spite of all that rubbish in the Gita (and the Bible and the Koran etc. etc. etc..) about war as duty war is always dirty and never moral. Self preservation may justify war though. Fresh from Sept 11 American thought that invading Iraq was an act of self preservation -- democracy in the middle east would make us safe. At that time the naive belief among the idiots who were running the government was that democracy in Iraq would be easy. There is no doubt that a democratic middle east would be a safer middle east -- However the mistake was in believing that elections are all that a democracy needs. Institutions that protect economic and civil liberties are just as (if not more) important.
Americans were naive in believing that we can get this by using force. So now here we are.
Post a Comment
<< Home