TO BE OR NOT TO BE A TERRORIST
Outside the awful events in Paris, for which there is no justification in the laws of God or nature, there is lots of talk about terrorists. As the word relates to 'unauthorized use of force in pursuit of particular aims' - what about the authorized use of force in pursuit of agendas by states and governments and corporations? The freedom fighters who fought against the 'authorized' forces of the British Government who controlled my country of Ireland in 1916 were branded terrorists and summarily shot. Michael Collins in the subsequent war for independence used brutal force against British spies and was considered a terrorist. The terrible bombing of civilian targets by the IRA of the 1970s were terrorist acts. So, too, were the terrible bombings of civilians in Dublin in 1974, in which the British government was undoubtedly complicit. Was that, too, a terrorist act?
So, can we qualify the term? Can we look behind the brand to see the reasons or underlying causes of the actions of people who kill others in pursuit of an objective? Is the manner of the killing and the subject victims a determiner in framing the action as a terrorist event? If the fight for freedom from occupation or internal repression by the citizens of a country was a clean business, freedom fighters would be pitted against the forces of the state in a 'fair fight' and consequent injuries to innocent parties would be eliminated. But freedom fighters are generally not in an even fight. They resort to guerrilla warfare, as the Irish did, where paranoia over possible infiltration by informants is generally rife, leading to brutal reprisals in order to keep the population 'on side'. The same principals, of course, apply to the 'official - non-terrorist (sic) forces, who generally terrorize the population to discourage their support for the rebel cause.
So, its not a clean business, is it: this defining or branding of people as terrorists.? Are U.S. drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan terrorist acts? They do not cut off the heads of people in a gruesome public act as the ghouls in ISIS do, but they almost always mince bodies and shred the limbs of innocents in 'collateral damage'. Is there a moral, ethical or indeed, a definable difference between the two?
When repressed people witness double standards: when they see Obama 'realize' that the vendetta against Cuba was an exercise in futility, yet doesn't see that blind support for Israel's disgraceful policies since 1948 and 1967 towards its Palestinian neighbours is equally futile - does that not expose in them a deep-seated discontent and create a possible spawning ground among a few for 'terrorism'? When the U.S. and Europe condemn Russia for its actions in the Ukraine, there is no mention of the appalling interventions of the U.S. in Chile and the Central Latin states 'to protect their interests'. The point is, neither is right. When the prime minister of Australia threatens to 'shirt-front' Putin, it demonstrates the lack of understanding of the representative of a country where 25 million people (military and civilian) died to save the world from German and Japanese imperialist aggression. This is, by the way, 2.5 times more losses than those sustained by the allies. China lost 15 million and it is arguable, that their action against the Japanese was the main reason the allies won in the Pacific. You wouldn't know it from the west's attitude towards these nations immediately post-war. We are faced with a world where astonishing hypocrisies are not challenged.
Ninety-nine percent of people in the world want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. They would want their wars confined to the sports arenas, where only the gladiators have the possibility of serious injury. It is always an underlying injustice that sparks the flame of revolt and it is now incumbent on us to stop using glib phrases to brand a race or religion with a label that could be equally pinned on most of our governments and their efforts to stiffle debate and intelligent discourse. When people begin to wear a slogan like a blanket of comfort that makes them impervious to a healthy sense of inquiry, that is the time when we should all worry about real democracy and the preservation of 'our values' . . . whatever they are?
