We have all heard the phrase " One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But where is the line drawn? I realize that terrorism is a universal evil, but is freedom fighting? And if the terrorist believes he's fighting for his people's freedom, be it political, idealogical, or religious, who's to say, "No, sorry...you don't qualify." I have often thought about two situations in the world, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland, that there is no sollution which suggests itself. You have two sides who are both right...or both wrong, depending upon your perspective. The Middle East: Palestine I'm trying to keep these in human terms, not broad sweeping political indictments, because that is where this stuff begins. The perspectives I offer are not about whether the international decisions involved were right, wrong, or whatever...I am merely trying to look at terrorism/freedom fighting with a human perspective. If you are a Palestinian, a ruling body of which you were not part made a decision in a far off land, and suddenly there are alll these troops with tanks and guns telling you that you have to move out of your ancestral home...the home, possibly, that your great great great grandfather built...on the land your people had occupied for a thousand years and more...and the justification, something called a holocaust, was a really bad thing these foreigners had done to each other...and this was why you had to go. You have no real army, so you can't really protest as these armies move you out of the area designated for these newcomers...your cries of indignation...your weeping wives and shaking fists avail you little. And then the people arrive, and they come by the thousands...and what's more, they come with money, and guns and tanks and jet fighters, and artillery...year by year they grow stronger...and your land seems farther and farther away... If you are an Israeli, you have likely just survived the Holocaust, although many of your friends and family probably didn't. The silver lining on the darkest of clouds is that the persecution of the Jews up to and including WWII seems to have focused world attention of the ill fated journey the Jews have faced since Diaspora, and though the workings of many in power, particularly in New York, a dream has been realized...the Holy Land has been reclaimed. After almost 2 thousand years of wandering and miraculously maintaining a culture, the Jews can go home... Except you get there and it quickly becomes apparent that the new neighbours are hardly rolling out the welcome wagon. They resent your existence to the Nth degree, blame you for stealing their land, for corrupting their holy places, for being infidels, and for living in their homes, or tearing them down. They have garnered sympathy from the surrounding Arab nations who also resent far off European and American powers playing God with their region, and deciding that this part of their world is no longer theirs...So the new found Isreali, far from finding Paradise reborn, finds that he is going to have to fight for evey inch...is urrounded by enemies, on all sides, and faces destruction from day one, and for the foreseeable future. There may even be some fleeting Israeli sympathy for the displaced Palestinians, but as it was not his decision in the first place and he;s fighting for his life, the average Israeli quickly comes to grips with the reality; It's either us or them, fair or not. So you have two sides, and neither one is to blame. Certainly if you're a young Palestinian male, and your home has just been stolen from you and yours, you are angry, violent, outraged...and who will listen to you? The world organization which resolves these matters is the very same group that did this in the first place...your neighbours will help, if you can rile them up enough, and that is what you do... So there are wars, and the Arabs cannot usually, compete with the US supplied military hardware...And if you're an Israeli, of course you fight. It's that, or be destroyed... So the neighbouring nations eventually sign peace treaties,,,and the Palestinian, left out of the negotiations, is once again abandoned. He cannot fight conventionally...he has no land, no army. Israel has taken even more during the wars...Palestinians, in a final insult, are not even recognized as a people by that far off organization which took away their land to give to the people who now live there... So you tell me...might you not have become a terrorist? What other way, in that situation, do you have to fight?How else does your cry get heard, if not in the echo of an explosion? Suppose more powerful nation than the US were to come along, and then step in and take away Texas and give it back to the Indians, and you ain't welcome unless you live under their rules for you...would you meekly submit? And if this new power gace the Indians the modern weapons which made them great, and keep you from being able to do anything in a conventional sense...what would you do, Texan? Now I am against killing...so I don't know what I'd do...but I bet a good many of us would do exactly what 'terrorists' do? Fight the only way you can...fight the same fight Le Resistance fought during WWII...Bombs, assassinations, etc...How else will you ever get your country back? And if one of the big nations which put your enemies n your land to begin with continues to give them the guns they use to shoot at your people, the rockets they fire on your frineds when they try yo reclaim your land for you...well, honestly, wouldn't you begin to wonder what you had ever done to this far off country to deserve such treatment? How long would it be before you and those countries around you would begin to think of them as your enemies too? How many family members would die at the hands of their weapons before you would see them as making war on you? Now, even if you're at war, I don't condone attacking civilians...that's a war crime. However we do it all the time...We say our real target in Hiroshima was industial/military, as well as sending a message, and the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties were a sad by-product, or collateral damage. Al Queda says that their real goal was to cripple the economic/military capacity of our country, while sending a message...is it all that different? I am not supporting Bin Laden. He is a war criminal for targeting civilians, or at the very least for not being concerned with them enough to avoid them, and should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. But I can empathize with the feelings of those like him who consider themselves at war...with Israel, the West, the US...I mean, honestly, what would you do? It is a war for them, as much as we like to dismiss their actions as mere terrorism. They are fighting, they believe, for the freedom of their people, against an incredibly powerful nation supported by another that much more powerful. Traditional warfare is suicide, and leaves their families at the mercies of their enemies...so, again, what would you do? I would like to think that, had I been born into that world, as, say, a Palestinian, I would never condone targeting civilians...but can I say for sure that i wouldn't bomb military bases of my enemy? Can you? It is easy to call them a word..."terrorist"...and close your mind. But these people are often indistinguishable with freedom fighters, and while their actions are not understandable to us, neither are their circumstances. I have tried to think of thier lot, and give it a human face..I know that by now much of the fighting on both sides has even lost some of the original purpose, and become as much about the fact that "they" killed my brother...and "they" killed my son..and I empathize...but to truly eliminate terrorism, we need to understand it in human terms, to look at it with human eyes, and yes, to sympathize...even with the devil.
But it's the groups funding the terrorists that are behind the evil. Hamas has many backers. These nations, IMO, are not interested in a free Palestinian state. These nations are interested in destroying Israel or at least driving them out of their 'Holy Land'. If it's not the Palestinian issue, it will be another. It's hard to say what one would do when up against the wall like the Palestinians. It appears that Palestinians want to bargain, but Hamas comes and screws that up because everyone knows Israel will strike back.
I would pack up and move out. I'm not going to commit suicide and murder innocent people because I am not allowed to live in Texas (or in my case California). Like my HS Bio teacher, I would head for greener pastures. Were I not able to get out, I would try to integrate into the occupying society. If I were unable to do that, then I would live under the rules that they gave me for living in my own little reduced section of my old country. If none of those are options, for some reason (ie Stormtroopers are rounding up my people wherever they find them and taking them to camps to be systematically slaughtered, then I take up arms against the military force of my enemy, despite the sheer hopelessness of my cause. What I do not do, is strap some C-4 to my chest and go blow up a shopping mall.
Hey man, not to appear as a sympathiser to terrorists, but Hamas has an incredibly positive image and fanatical support in the Middle East and among Palestinians. A former roommate and good friend of mine who grew up there told me about this. They run a number of social services like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, distribute food and clothing, organise festivals and prayer meetings, etc. etc. etc. A veritable combination of the Salvation Army, Kiwanis/Rotary Club, and your local church. Their financial backing in many cases comes from donations from your average Arab citizen, often housewives, across the Middle East. Sure they run terrorist plots against Israelis (more often than not against Israeli occupation soldiers) and receive backing from murky sources, but that's certainly not the whole picture. I read this today on CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/10/mideast.rantissi/index.html "I say to the world no peace with occupation," said Abdel Aziz Rantissi, speaking in an interview with CNN from a hospital bed in Gaza. "Occupation contradicts peace. If they want security, the tragedy of the Palestinians should be ended." Violence and terrorism, and nothing else, got the the Palestinians to where they are today (at the negotiation table discussing nationhood). You look elsewhere in the world, and you'll see that violence and, where it has come to it, terrorism DOES work. Having the Israeli public watch their dead soldier boys comes back in bodybags sends them a very clear message, that occupation carries a heavy price. At the same time, nonviolence hasn't done terribly well recently, especially in the Israel (see American protester run over by Israeli bulldozer). And you know what, considering all that, Rantissi's defiant comments sounded eerily like common sense to me...
Excellent topic, MacBeth. I don't necessarily agree with all your points, but it's a fascinating issue. Looking at how Americans rallied after Sept. 11, it's very easy to see the freedom fighter/terrorist dichotomy. We rallied against a common enemy, and just about anything our government did was almost universally approved. Just as Sept. 11 "strengthened our resolve," every Afghanistan bombing or Iraqi murder strengthens theirs. It's a horrible cycle, with innocence and guilt on all sides. But there's no right or wrong here: it's just a matter of perspective. Al Queda believe they're freedom fighters fighting American terrorism. Americans believe they're the freedom fighters fighting Al Queda terrorism. Who's right? Oscar Wilde once said a person's arrogance is never more apparent than when say their country is best simply because they were born there. If we're able to see beyond national allegiance and cultural bias, we'll see a much different situation -- one that might even be resolved with compassion and love.
Is there any distinction between "freedom fighters" who target innocent civilians and those who target an opressive government or regime? I'm just not sure if I agree that the terms terrorism and freedom fighting are as easily interchangable as you're making them out to be, but I think it does apply to the Palestinians.
I understand that it is easy to be blinded by hatred, especially if you are in the situation of the Palestinians. Freedom fighting, even using terrorist tactics, is understandable--at the beginning. But after all these years of violence, someone in there has got to be able to see through all the hatred and desperation and say, "This isn't working. Terrorism isn't giving us any more freedom. It gives us less. Let's try something else." I agree with Bigman that the "freedom fighting" now is backed by people who have no interest in the welfare of the Palestinians. As long as the Palestinians don't cut their ties with these "outsiders" they have no hope for leading a peaceful life. They need a great leader, an M. L. King, or a Ghandi, someone who is not afraid to be a martyr not as a suicide bomber but as a visionary misunderstood, hated, and even killed by some of his own people. They need someone strong enough to inspire them to change their whole perspective on the situation.
The US never targets civilians. Al Qaeda almost always does. And terrorism is one of the main reasons the Palestinians still don't have their own state.
Uhhh. Here I go being "Anti Uhmericun," but I think the most positive thing we can say is that the US military has not recently targeted civilians, to the best of our knowledge (crosses fingers). To say "never" ignores some sad episodes with which I do not wish to derail the thread. I think we all know them, be they germ-laced blankets or mushroom clouds.
Tell that to the dead journalists' families from the Palestine Hotel. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030528/ap_on_re_eu/spain_iraq_lawsuit_1 or the 3,240 civilians killed so far http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0030611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead
Cool. I like that, and I'm actually very happy with how our military has bent over backwards to try this. I mean, I still wish we hadn't invaded Iraq, but if we had to do it, I like how we did it.
TARGETS, mc mark...not collateral damage...but actual TARGETS. we don't make targets of civilians...we don't spend money or exhaust resources trying to maximize civilian casualties. al qaeda does...it's job one to them.
Did we target them? Hell no. The US military has spent billions of dollars on techonolgy that will minimize civilian deaths to the fullest extent possible. Our soldiers used procedures that put their lives at great risk but minimized civilian deaths.
So Max you are totally fine with all the people who died in that restaurant that we destroyed trying to get Saddam? that's "collateral damage"?
absolutely not!!! i'm not fine with anyone dying like that. it's a very unfortunate consequence of war. yes...that is the very definition of collateral damage...and, no..you don't have to like it. the united states spends billions of dollars developing weapons to reduce civilian casualties. al qaeda and other terrorist groups send millions of dollars trying to increase civilian casualties.
cool max My emotions are getting the better of me and I admit to being frustrated about the whole scene. deep breaths mark...
Okay...and I'm not saying this is the case, I have never and pray God wil never come face to face with Osama Bin Laden to discuss the matter, but what if, for the sake of argument, the Al Quaeda's position was that: In order to derail the military and industrial complex which suppkies the arms that kill their people, be they soldiers, civilians or whatever, the 'freedom fighters' of 9-11 targeted those accessible areas which would cause the greatest economic, military, and psychological effect on the US. Think about it: * The WTC was probably the greatest symbol of American economic power, not to mention a potentially devastating economic loss for the US. * The other targets were all related to that kind of thinking...The Pentagon was not a civilian target...the White House and/or Camp David, depending on what version you believe is not either. So by that reasoning , what if Al Quaeda stated that those were their aims, and the casualties were merely 'collateral damage.'? Also, and this is not a debate on right oir wrong in the poast, merely parallel thinking; Think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a sec...What was the purpose again? It was not at all primarily military, and neither were the targets...it was designed to strike at the willingness of the Japanese people to support the war. Isn't that exactly the assumed reasoning Al Queada ( I can never get the damed spelling right) gives for striking on 9-11, to diminish our willingness to support what they percieve to be a war on Islam and the Arab world? I'm not saying they were right...far from it, I think both were wrong... But in the veign of this thread...in thinking of these people as human beings, not labelling them with a word, and closing our minds...think about that aspect. Is the thinking any different? Both are in the middle of wars ( as stated earlier, Al Queda considers itself at war with the US and Israel)...and both hit targets with extreme 'colateral damage' for the purpose of striking at the enemy's schwerpunkt'...Forgwt about condeing the US...but also don't shy way from the history either...I'm talking mindset of those making the move...It made sense to us in '45, no? It was a terrible loss, a tragedy, and we deeply regreted the civilian causalties...excpet we pulled the trigger and celebrated when it worked. If we have any empathy for the Americans who were tired of war, angry about being attacked without cause, etc...think about this: Palestinians still don't understand why we chose to effectively 'make war' against them either.
