The Terrorist: Criminal or Freedom Fighter - Research Paper Example

 The Terrorist: Criminal or Freedom Fighter? Abstract While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him. --Dostoevsky The above quote from the noted Russian novelist could not be more truthful. The mindset that prompts a “terrorist” as an assumed “evildoer” to perform acts of violence can be explained from two perspectives: that of those affected by the action, and that of those for whom the action holds a degree of validity based on perceived political, social or personal injustice. To argue this point from the standpoint of right or wrong is a nearly futile endeavor. In this paper we examine terrorism in a historical, social and institutional light, exploring the notion that, like it or not, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Historical Context of Terrorism Since 911 terrorism has taken on the identity of a “new” way of waging war. However, violence fueled by fanatical ideology is nothing new. Borum quotes Jonathon White, “the idea of terrorizing civilians to further a particular political, social, or religious cause has existed for centuries” (p. 7). Latin America is a good example, with left wing political groups such as the Shining Path terrorizing villagers if they do not go along with their political goals against the established government. Scholars agree that terrorism is a disputed term, and very few of those labeled terrorists, if one asks them, not only see their missions as valid political causes against an enemy they can not possibly defeat in with the methods of traditional warfare. In fact, you will rarely hear a fighter described in the press as a terrorist refer to themselves in this vernacular. So then the term itself is deceiving, as is the way in which it is used. The Irish Republican Army, for example, generally considered a terrorist organization, sees itself as the only valid force of counterforce against British injustice in the country. History is rife with other lesser familiar examples dating back to the first century and the Sicarii Zealots, a Jewish group which attempted through dagger attacks to drive the Romans from Judea. Other examples come to mind. The Reign of Terror and subsequent anarchism in Europe and America’s own terrorist organization, the Klu Klux Klan. The Klan, backed by a good number of southerners in fear of black freedom, emerged following the Civil War as America’s first true terrorist group. Interestingly the group is rarely referred to as “terrorist,” which brings us to the issue of conceptualizing terrorism as a criminal activity. Terrorism: An Elusive Concept Rapoport (1988) found that in 1969 he could hardly find materials on the subject for a research project and today can find over 5,000 references. One might attribute the growing interest to 911. The conceptualizing of the idea of terrorism has fixated on the notion that the terrorist is part of a wider organization [a notion we shall accept for our purposes]. The group sees itself as a secondary army fighting generally for those without or with a lesser degree of power, which naturally puts it in the category of defender of the weak and oppressed. Hence the organization’s often close ties with specific communities rather than a centralized power structure. These communities see the group as heroes in their cause. Crenshaw wrote in Rapoport (1988), “The organization, as a unit, acts to achieve collective values, which involve radical changes in political and social conditions.” (p. 13). If you ask a Palestinian about Hamas they will speak of its community building efforts while the group is considered by most to be “terrorist.” Let us use Hamas as an example of the elusive concept of terrorism. Davidson (2006) comments on a debate held as part of a series by Intellegence Squared U.S. produced by WNYC. “Three panelists argued that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Three others responded that Hamas now leads a legitimate, democratically elected government and is not a terrorist group. But almost all agreed on the basic details: Hamas has targeted and killed many civilians [terrorist profile], and Israel's occupation has contributed to a violent political environment [political and social repression]” (para. 1-2). The sociological and religious implications of this group are quite complex and obviously contribute to its perceived identity as a terrorist organization, although as a group Hamas is decidedly more political in its intentions then fanatically religious, as is al Qaida. As an alternative to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, deemed corrupt and out of touch with the people, Hamas “won great support among Palestinians because of the extensive network of social services it offered in the occupied territories” (Davidson, 2006: para. 7). Hamas's central charter none-the-less does call for the violent overthrow of Israel, and according to Israel the group continues to kill innocent civilians in that cause. While this is undoubtedly true, given certain parameters, there seems to be some doubt as to whether Hamas as a political group directly supports such activities and whether, in a political sense, the Palestinians who have failed to secure a nation state from Israel are actually fighting a legitimate war. War, as it is known, always involves the killing of civilians, as evidenced in the U.S. War in Afghanistan where daily reports tell of civilian casualties that doesn’t appear to bother anyone. As for groups such as al Qaida, the purpose of their violence appears resoundingly religious with little to justify its actions except their own belief that Islam must dominate the world. There is, however, another side, and that is that for year’s questions concerning western domination of these countries through political puppet governments has been a concern. Taking it this way, their actions find justification among those offended as a last ditch effort to eliminate western influence in the only way they can, through guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism. Lacking the resources and weaponry to wage full scale battle against western powers, a shocking attack style to prove a point takes the place of the traditional battlefield style—or other accepted modes of warfare. In attacking the Trade Center they were not specifically attacking civilians [although that was the result], but the symbol of western financial domination, as the Pentagon is the seat of military power in the U.S. Rapoport (1988) wrote the following regarding the role of the media in characterizing and promoting terrorist activities: ...by giving unusual events extensive coverage, the mass media completed the picture; 'you can't be a revolutionary without a color TV: it's as necessary as a gun (p. 33). The above is undoubtedly true. The contribution the media makes to perceptions about those fighting in many aspects amount to a guerilla war against powerful enties is obvious to the astute listener and viewer. The term, “terrorist” is bandied about quite loosely; one rarely hears commentators talk about why actions are taken. For instance, even in the awful case of 911, I have yet to hear anything ever said about the warning signs that many Islamic people in the Middle West were opposed to U.S. influence there. Also, the U.S. role in handing Palestine over to the Jews after the World War II caused great animosity amongst the Muslim population, an animosity that festered and greatly contributed to the cause of events on 911. As far as the killing of civilians, it is more likely that the destruction of the Trade Tower had more to do with its identity as a symbol of U.S. economic power in the world than it did with the deliberate killing of civilians. Those who flew the planes were thus seen as heroes to the Muslim cause. In conclusion then we see that while western media and politicians promote the “evil” side of terrorists activity in killing the innocent to make there point, we also see the other side of the issue: what has been deemed criminal for these groups goes on regularly in traditional warfare yet is sidestepped as “collateral damage.” For disenfranchised groups struggling for justice in a world dominated by super powers it is not difficult to understand how people may view the fighters not as terrorists to be despised, but warriors in their cause. From financiers in Saudi Arabia to private contributions from “charity” groups in Detroit, Michigan, there are people out there who believe that those we call terrorists are working in their benefit. From a personal perspective I can not and never could find justification in killing masses of people unable to defend themselves in the cause of a particular political ideology, no matter how historically or otherwise justified that cause may be. I do think, however, that the media has dulled and distorted the recognitions of the conditions that have caused certain people in desperation to stoop to these tactics. It also falls to politicians as leaders to incorporate the concerns of groups, many of whom join terrorist organizations in desperation and a sense of hopeless alienation. Borum (2003) sums up the issue quite clearly in the following: Gaining insight as to how someone may resolve a particular dilemma or handle a given situation requires a consideration of the person’s entire perspective as influenced not only by their values and beliefs but by other factors, such as the information they have been exposed to, their assumptions, and their life experiences—in short, how they view the world. Reference List Borum. R. (2003). “Understanding the terrorist mind-set – Perspective.” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72:(7), 7-10. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/july03leb.pdf Davidson, A. (2006). Hamas: Government or terrorist organization, dated December. 6,2006. On National Public Radio (NPR) website. Retrieved August 17, 2010 from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6583080 Rapoport, D.C. (1988). Inside terrorist organizations. New York: Columbia University Press. Read More