>>> Steeve
>>> Senior Member
>>> Registered: Mar 2001
>>> Posts: 35
>>> Terrorism-As I see it
>>>
>>> While condemning the terrorists' attacks on the 11th of September in New York and Washington, I would say that terrorism can be a good weapon to fight injustice and to achieve sound political, social and economic goals. There has been conflicting ideas on who a terrorist is, especially in regards to freedom fighters. Ronald Reagan once said that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", whether he is right or wrong is left for you to judge, but what I think is that the United Nations should come up with a clear-cut definition of a terrorist, rather than leaving the United States of America and her Western Allies to decide who a terrorist is. Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest freedom fighters in the 20th century, and also one of the most respected politicians on earth, was considered a terrorist; and he used "terrorism", amongst other factors, to fight the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. I think this is what Arafat is doing today. His fight against the Isreali occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state is a just cause that needs to be given attention to by the international community. I do not see any difference between the Palestinian suicide bombers and the Isreali soldiers, who go into Palestianian controlled areas, assasinate political leaders and kill innocent civilians in the name of self-defense. America, the key ally of the apartheid government in Isreal, and the only super power on earth, would shamelessly and unjustly call it steps taken to stop terrorist attacks. It's an open secrete that states do not have friends but interests. However, while pursuing their interests, states should be a little fair and just. If we all accept that what the Jews suffered under the Nazis regimes in Europe in the 1930s was inhumane and unjust, we should also accept the fact that what the Palestinians are suffering today under the Isreali occupation is also unfair and inhumane. The Palestinian should not be the victim of the Isreali revenge on the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s. While fighting terrorism, we should also look into the causes, because we can not treat the symptom and leave the disease.
>>> October-26th-2001 01:52 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> sankara
>>> Junior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Oct 2001
>>> Posts: 3
>>> I could not agree more. The United States' foreign policy can be characterized as one based on selective morality depending on their interest. And it is this policy that breeds the kind of terrorism that we are all facing today. For the United States to win the war on terrorism, bombing Afghanistan and killing bin Laden along with his operatives will not help. The United States should be changing, if not revamping, its foreign policy to reflect the values it was founded on, and which its people cherish so dearly (freedom, democracy, justice).
>>> October-28th-2001 04:20 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Kwomboh
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Jul 2000
>>> Posts: 133
>>> It's an act aimed at Creating Fear(Terror). Bear in mind that World political order is not predicated on an egalitarin principle, but on the concept that he who has the means, also determines the direction of world political order.
>>> Take for example, at one point in history, piracy was (and still is - L'Afrique's emphasis) an acceptable method for acquiring wealth by those nations with powerful navies. Britain, for example, benefited immensely from it. But when other nations began to improve on their naval capabilities, piracy became outlawed. If we focus on the achievements of terrorism, but fail to see the carnage it leaves behind, then every act of mass massacre can always be justified on the grounds that a wrong has gone uncorrected for too long.
>>> Terrorism is hard to define, but I will quote Achebe who points out in "Things Fall Apart" that if a man deficates in the threshold of your house, you do not sit there and watch him. You grab a big stick and clubber him over the head.
>>> The Palestinian issue is one we should treat with caution. Chairman Arafat is not the wisest of leaders as we might want to portray. Take a look at the proposal that was placed before him by Prime minister Barak and supported by President Clinton. He was given a chance that he will be given 90% of what he asked for, plus a chance at negotiating the status of Jerusalem, an issue which no other Isreali leader had ever agreed to. He turned it down. Let me ask you this: Can Palestine win an all out war with the Isrealis? No. How many Palestinians will have to die before Arafat realizes that he has a mission to save his people, not to conquer the Jews? Egypt saw the futility of the latter, and made peace with Isreal. The population of Isreal continues to grow as Jews immigrate from Russia and other parts of the world into Isreal. As this continues, there will continue to be a demand for land. As long as no boundaries have been clearly demarcated between Isreal and Palestine, Isreal will continue to annex bits and pieces here and there. Indiscriminate killings, whether carried out by bin Laden, Isreal, or the United States as one might choose to see, simply discredit the course for which one is fighting for. Endorsing such tactics on the basis of their achievements is an endorsement of a Machiavellian principle that says, "the end justifies the means."
>>> October-28th-2001 08:34 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Malcolm
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Jul 2000
>>> Posts: 55
>>> I broadly agree with much of what has been said above,
but I also see things from a different angle on some of the issues raised.
>>> My dictionary defines a freedom fighter as "one engaged in armed rebellion against an oppressive government" and terrorism as (1) "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intent of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons" (2) "systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments".
>>> There is a fine line dividing these two concepts, and depending on which side of the fence one finds oneself on, they may choose to claim they are freedom fighters or accuse others of terrorism. And the situation is not made any easier when we have tyrants at the head of governments. Hence using the law, the apartheid government in South Africa could accuse Mandela of terrorism. But as Martin Luther King pointed out, (paraphrasing) "while we have to obey just laws, it is not only right to disobey unjust laws, it is a moral responsibility to do so". This is why I find the comment that Mandela was a terrorist not only wrong, but obscene.
>>> I also think that although it is sometimes difficult to agree on whether certain acts constitute terrorism or the fight of freedom, I will not hesitate in classifying the use of jetliners as missiles as brutal acts of terrorism. Whatever the cause is, I do not see how such an attack on innocent civilians can ever be justified. To put things in some kind of context, the current intifada in Palestine has claimed less than 1500 lives in over a year; the attacks on Washington and New York claimed between 6000 and 7000 lives in a matter of minutes. I strongly support the need for the US to go after the perpetrators of these acts because if they do not, the terrorists will just continue with more attacks. The nature of the US response is another matter.
>>> About the situation in the Middle East, I agree that US foreign policy vis-a-vis the Palestinian problem has led to a lot of grievances on the Palestinian side, but that should never be accepted as justification for September 11. And the actions of Sharon and his gang are not helpful either. Israel will never know peace if it believes in a policy of continued occupation of Palestinian territory after 50 years, illegal construction of Jewish enclaves within Palestinian land, assasination of Palestinian leaders, destruction of Palestinian homes and farmlands, etc. But I am also aware that there are Palestinians who will not rest until Israel is destroyed. The region badly needs leaders with the courage of Rabin, who on the Israeli side, can understand the humiliation and injustice Arabs feel (the loss of their land, Sharon's massacre in Shatila, the Arab Auschwitz (Khiam prison), just to name a few), and on the Palestinian side, leaders who can understand that Israel will always be their neighbor and on the basis of that, renounce terrorism and be prepared to take the risk of facing their militants.
>>> October-29th-2001 12:59 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> rfikki
>>> Rockmeister
>>>
>>> Registered: Jul 2000
>>> Posts: 23
>>> Well, what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter; is there a difference?
>>> Which of any of the following would be considered a terrorist or freedom fighter, based on your point of view?
>>> 1). Global: Che Guevara, Robin Hood, Braveheart?
>>> 2). USA: Malcolm X, Geronimo?
>>> 3). Others for discussions?
>>> Bung Karno - terrorist and collaborator according to the Dutch, freedom fighter according to the Indonesian Nationalists. Eventually most of the world accepted the second point of view.
>>> Menachem Begin - terrorist according to the British, and eventually the big cheese in Israel. Though the taint of Irgun crimes never entirely disappeared, he was sort of accepted as a valid head of state by the rest of the world.
>>> Yasir Arafat (Abu Amar) - terrorist according to Ariel Sharon (himself a war criminal), yet definitely also a statesman and freedom fighter. Now head of a recognized territorial authority, and possibly the only Arab leader that most likely is not a hypocritical bastard.
>>> Mohandas Gandhi - agitator, rabble rouser, and rebel in a bedsheet, but also nationalist, leader, and inspiring figure.
>>> Mao TseTung - Bandit, terrorist, guerilla leader. Became leader of communist China, and was responsible for the deaths of more of his countrymen than any other Chinese leader or natural disaster in Chinese history.
>>> William of Orange - Rebel, traitor, liar, heretic. Became revered leader of a small and intensely irritating little North Sea country.
>> Any difference on how they are viewed appears to be both a question of time and point of view. And this goes for most public figures who can be viewed from different vantage points.
>>> __________________
>>> The Webmaster @
>>> AfricaPlanet.com
>>>
>>> October-29th-2001 06:16 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> sankara
>>> Junior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Oct 2001
>>> Posts: 3
>>> Referring to reply # 3
>>> It is amazing how easily we sometimes make the same mistake of comparing or aligning our current problems or situations with those of centuries ago, without realizing that we live in a totally different world, regardless of what criteria you use. The root cause of terrorism, regardless of how your define it, are economic and social. Those are the breeding grounds for terrorism or armed struggle (rebellion) or radicalism or whatever name we deem appropriate. When people have no hope because they are living in poverty, hunger and pestilence, or under occupation in the case of the Palestinians, people like bin Laden seize upon that hope. Until our leaders start to reorganize that, they will never get to the core of stopping terrorism.
>>> October-29th-2001 11:18 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Malcolm
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Jul 2000
>>> Posts: 55
>>> My posting #4 happens to be reply #3, so I presume Sankara's posting is in reaction to mine.
>>> We are in agreement that the injustices in the world are a contributory factor to terrorism, and the causes of these injustices have got to be solved urgently. My argument is that firing missiles onto the World Trade Center does not help any cause, however noble.
>>> We need visionary leaders who can understand that the other side is hurting, to solve these problems. Unfortunately, they are such a rare breed. The alternative is to let our emotions dictate our actions.
>>> Rfikki I agree, the conclusion as to whether somebody is a terrorist or a freedom fighter tends to be very subjective. I do not have the answers to a fraction of the problems, and that is why I have so much admiration for the Gandhis and the Mandelas.
>>> October-30th-2001 01:24 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Kwomboh
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Jul 2000
>>> Posts: 133
>>> Malcom makes some very clear and strong arguments against an all out support for acts of terror committed in defense of inequality. I will like to add this piece in the hope that it will stir us away from dangerous scenarios. Take for example; anglophone Cameroonians have an ax to grind with Biya. Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that the military establishment propping up his regime is French controlled. Will anyone propose that a disgruntled anglophone fly a plane into the Champs Elysee? No, that will accomplish nothing. Should the pilot in question fly his plane into a French military base say in Central African Republic or Gabon? That will make sense. The French will call it terrorism, Cameroonians will call it heroic. Not all targets are fair game in this quest for redress. Putting the likes of Mandela, Martin Luther King and Ghandi together with all the other characters who have achieved their objectives via the use of one form of violence or another, is a disservice to humanity. The three names above used civil disobedience in a non-violent form. Their method might have been long in accomplishing goals, but does not leave a trail havoc behind.
>>> October-30th-2001 04:36 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Steeve
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Mar 2001
>>> Posts: 35
>>> What lessons have we learned?
>>> America is very controversial in the way she looks at things. When the American embassies were bombed in Africa, Bin Laden was the key suspect but America did not want him, dead or alive, because most of the victims were not Americans. They instead went and bombed a pharmaceutical industry in Sudan and mountains in Afghanistan. When Mubarack took a tough stand against the Afghan terrorists in Egypt, America accused him of human rights violations, but they do not see the killing of civilians and destruction of properties in Afghanistan as human rights violations. If justice is good for America, America should also know that Justice is good for the world at large. But what lessons have we learned from the Sept 11 tragedy???
>>> October-30th-2001 01:09 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Nador
>>> Junior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Oct 2001
>>> Posts: 6
>>> Terrorism as I see it
>>> Acts of terror committed in the pursuit of justice and more equality may be justified in certain special cases such as South Africa under apartheid rule. The current terrorism against the USA and other economically developed nations, however, is something different. What is America and the West accused of? The concepts of "justice" or "equality" are far too vague to be used in this context. There has always been and there will always be injustice and inequality in this world. Large-scale terrorism such as the attacks on the WTC will destroy all chances of improving the situation. As a result of this new form of terrorism we will, in all probability, have the following effects: a decline in world economic growth; a decline, therefore, in financial aid to poor nations; a more intensive economic cooperation between the West and those countries that help fighting the terrorists. Overall, however, there will only be losers. What I deplore most is the fact that African nations will also suffer.
>>> __________________
>>> Nador86222
>>>
>>> November-2nd-2001 12:14 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Steeve
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Mar 2001
>>> Posts: 35
>>> You have seen for yourself.
>>> We have made an attempt in this forum to differenciate between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. And Malcolm did a good job to painfully define both terminologies, while others gave various interpretations looking at various angles. Politicians are still knocking their heads on this issue. This could be seen in Tony Blair's recent visit to the middle east. He and the Syrian King disagree on the definition of terrorism. Palestinian groups based in Syria and considered by the west as terrorists, are considered in Syria as "RESISTANCE GROUPS". This problem can also be seen in the disputed region of Kashmir: While Pakistan considers the Kashmir separatist as freedom fighters, India considers them as terrorists. Terrorism has become a subjective rather than an objective term. And if we do not agree on a common definition of it, it would not be possible to wage a successful global war on TERRORISM.
>>> November-2nd-2001 12:44 PM
>>>
>>> Nador
>>> Junior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Oct 2001
>>> Posts: 6
>>> Terrorism - As I see it
>>> "Terrorism has become a subjective rather than an objective term" (Steeve). "...the conclusion as to whether somebody is a terrorist or a freedom fighter tends to be very subjective" (Malcolm).
>>> Wrong. The great freedom fighters such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Mandela, had a clear and objective view of what freedom fighting is about. Freedom fighting can and must be based on objective criteria which can be found in numerous constitutional documents and international agreements, namely the European charter of human rights. If you construct your own personal definition of a "freedom fighter" you will eventually become your own law-maker, your own judge and your own executioner. These "freedom-fighters" never fight for freedom but for power, and as soon as they have got it, they will establish a bloody dictatorship.
>>> True: Nations have interests. And great nations may have big interests. Inequalities and injustice may arise from this. Let us talk about dealing with these problems rationally. Terrorism is not the answer.
>>> __________________
>>> Nador86222
>>>
>>> November-4th-2001 04:24 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Malcolm
>>> Senior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Jul 2000
>>> Posts: 55
>>> Nador,
>>> The first paragraph of the European Charter on human rights reads "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values", and the document goes on and on about the rights of people (Europeans in the main). I have had a cursory glance at the document and there does not appear to be any reference to "freedom fighter" or may be you could point it out to us. In any case, is there any objective reason why you would expect me to place the European Charter before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
>>> I beg to disagree with your view that "terrorism" and "freedom fighter" are not subjective terms. Based on your "objective criteria", and tell us what those criteria are, why not try to answer some of the questions below:
>>> Is the Palestinians intifada terrorism or not?
>>> Is the Israeli treatment of Palestinians terrorism or not?
>>> Malcolm X? Che Guevara? Robin Hood? Were they freedom fighters or terrorists?
>>> May I suggest that you have not been able to expand your list of freedom fighters beyond Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mandela simply because even your own view of who a freedom fighter is, is subjective.
>>> At least there is one thing you and I have agreed on. Terrorism is not the answer. But I thought that is what everyone else has alluded to. The discussion has been on how to distinguish a freedom fighter from a terrorist.
>>> November-4th-2001 07:15 PM
>>>
>>> Nador
>>> Junior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Oct 2001
>>> Posts: 6
>>> Steeve,
>>> I do not intend to engage in a fruitless attempt of defining the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist". Malcolm has supplied two satisfactory definitions of terrorism, I don't think we need a philosophical or legal discussion of this subject. According to Malcolm's dictionary (definition no. 2) terrorism is "systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments". This is all we need (definition no. 1 is more precise, more legalistic, I take no. 2 for the sake of simplicity). You will note the fact that the dictionary doesn't speak of democratic societies. In view of my German experience, I am tempted to justify terrorism against criminal governments of the Nazi category. But this will open the way to justify any kind of terrorism. So let us be frank: As soon as certain individuals or groups commit acts of violence or other acts that are not in accordance with the law they are either criminals or - in case they have openly declared political ends - terrorists. Therefore, I can name but a few persons who might qualify as "freedom fighters". Gandhi, perhaps, Martin Luther King, probably. I don't find many others. Not because my definition is subjective, I just take the definition given by Malcolm's dictionary.
>>> The reason why I'm participating in this discussion is simply that I had the impression that most, if not all contributors to this subject on this board, seem to have great sympathy for the WTC terrorists. I have none. Nor do I have sympathy for all those forms of terrorism that have been mentioned in this context. People should realize that the answer to all our problems lies in peaceful political cooperation. I admit that the thinking of people from Africa or Asia may in some way still be coloured by the "freedom fighting", the fight for indepence against colonial powers. They may sometimes feel that things cannot be changed without violence. I don't think so. The current situation is different. The answer must be to strengthen international cooperation.
>>> __________________
>>> Nador86222
>>>
>>> November-6th-2001 02:50 PM
>>>
>>> Bekila
>>> Junior Member
>>>
>>> Registered: Nov 2001
>>> Posts: 3
>>> The last post seems very assuming and judgemental!
>>> I have been lurking/watching this discussion without posting. I decided to enter the fray because I feel I must respond to the last post by Nador.
>>> According to your statement:
>>> Would any form of public protest, even non-violent, be terroristic if it were deemed illegal by the current law? Example: If you do not receive a license to march such as they did during the civil rights movement for instance; If you refuse to sit in the back of the bus; If you drink at a White only water fountian and are Black?
>>> Question: Whose laws are we going by?
>>> Would those seeking to overthrow the Taliban, for instance, be terrorists? The law of the land in Afghanistan is set by their current government.
>>> Is Afghanistan a sovereign nation?
>>> Are those countries inciting (instigating - L'Afrique's emphasis) overthrowing of other governments they do not agree with, terrorists?
>>> I am not sure one can infer that most posts on this board are pro-terrorist. Can we have a frank discussion without being labeled? McCarthyism....
>>> "... peaceful political cooperation". What the heck is this? Sounds like Taliban, like submissive cooperation! I am surprised you would even use such language. Are the violent uprisings that brought down communism and the Berlin wall justified?
>>> "I admit that the thinking of people from Africa or Asia.... They may sometimes feel that things cannot be changed without violence".
>>> Are people from Africa and Asia different from other people in their way of thinking?
>>> Do you understand the history of the Civil Rights Movement? Ghandi?
>>> These two figures were only reluctantly embraced because the alternative that was lurking was violent resistance... by other groups.
>>> Without that threat, would they have been embraced?
>>> More food for thought:
>>> Please don't assume that the post above reflects any particular way of thinking. It is provided for discussion purposes only....
>>> November-6th-2001 03:42 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> L'Afrique
>>>
>>> Junior Member
>>> Registered:
>>> Posts: 2
>>> Wow! Very impressive discussion indeed. However, I'm still waiting to hear someone address that other crucial issue in this terrorism/freedom fighting dilemmas.
>>> Let me start by saying that like Malcolm, I, too, strongly believe acts such as those of 911, 2001, can never be justified for the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of any nation is unaware of most of the acts of its government officials -
>>> And with all due respect to all our fellow innocent human lives lost, would someone pray tell why it was okay for the USA, the supposed model of democracy, to invade and/or bomb Grenada, Libya, Iraq (killing all those other innocent civilians)? Are we to ignore the fact that these developing nations, being beside themselves, may just have been following in the footprints of the USA, our self-declared-world police? In addition, I like what one unknown author wrote regarding this issue: "War is terrorism by the rich; and terrorism is war by the poor (although I believe the author meant FREEDOM FIGHTING is war by the poor)."
>>> To Nador: The sufferings in Africa, my friend, results from a root of its own. With all its natural resources, Africa, the only piece of land God Himself found safe to run to, has no excuse whatsoever for its present conditions. And Nador, please re-read this discussion. The contributors are merely reaching down to the roots of "Terrorism".
>>> To Steeve: The lesson learned, from a USA point of view, is definitely that the USA is not all that mighty!
>>> __________________
>>> Regards, L'Afrique
>>>
>>> August-18th-2002 03:45 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> All times are GMT. The time now is 07:38 AM. Pages (3): [1] 2 3
?
>>> Last Thread Next Thread
>>>
>>> Legal Restrictions and Terms of Use Privacy statement
Copyright ? 1999, 2000, 2001 Africaplanet.com and PortalGlobe, Inc.
>>> Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.4 Copyright ?2000, 2001, Jelsoft
Enterprises Limited.
>>