17 January, 2007

One man's revolutionary, another man's terrorist

Rarely has there been a bloodless revolution; by and large, the pages of history are smeared with the disntegrated mortal remains of un-named, faceless innocent bystanders to armed conflicts between a rigid status quo and an uncertain glorious future.

If the future is the goal, is the revolution a means to that end, and terrorism a misbegotten component of revolutionary thinking?

Or have we already suspended our judgement and taken a biased position when we apply the word "terrorist" to someone who thinks of himself or herself as a soldier for freedom?

Do his ends justify his means?

Do we restrict our definition of terrorist to those who use mass murder and mayhem wantonly to spread fear, rather than those who are driven by a cause that might improve the future for more people than will be sacrificed in the struggle?

Why are there more questions than answers?


Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

good post anjan with some very valid points.
after all were the french freedom fighters, who fought the nazi occupation and blew up and bombed many german troops, terrorists?

the only answer i have, in my very simplistic way, is this. violence is always wrong unless you are defending your self or your family from imminent attack.

gandhi should be our light.

17/1/07 15:38  
Blogger ozymandiaz said...

The definition of terrorism is as follows:
anyone who is unwilling to submit to MY world view
(the "MY" in this statement is the whom whomever may utter the words)

23/1/07 22:33  
Blogger dining_philosopher said...

Anyone who indulges in indiscriminate violence is a terrorist. Nobody has a right to "sacrifice" other innocent people - no matter how lofty the cause is. We can see the US government "sacrificing" Iraqi people so that they can bestow the gift of democracy on Iraq. 655000 sacrifices according to some estimates. Now what if some Muslim fundamentalist group wants to sacrifice 655000 American lives in their quest to bestow the Islamic way of life or Sharia on the US? No cause is worth innocent civilian lives. Fight if you have to - but dont kill indiscriminately. "Collateral damage" is another name for blatant display of cowardice. The US uses air raids and kills indiscriminately to minimize its own casualties and at the expense of innocent civilian lives - which is nothing but cowardice in my book.

5/2/07 06:46  
Blogger Pegasus said...

only a terrorist or a psychopath will do indiscriminate murder

18/2/07 21:49  
Blogger Nick Zegarac said...

I would go one step further and say that "never" has there been a bloodless revolution. Nor, I will venture a guess, will there ever be one. Mankind is, sadly, prone to fits of reaction rather than an arch of consistent calls to action.

Even when men of peace and vision - such as Gandhi or Martin Lurther King - are the harbingers of glad tidings, there have been those moments in history where the kind word is forced into temporary submission.

However, as history has proven - you may murder the person but you cannot kill their thoughts!

I mourn the dead. But I continue to pray for the living.

22/2/07 22:40  
Blogger Kratos said...

100000 years.. and Counting.

We haven't answered any questions since we could form 'thought'.

Maybe... maybe compassion is silly, a mutation...unnatural and against our nature.

It is a possibility....

20/3/07 00:58  
Blogger keinen said...

I passed by the Blog and it took my attention, these days the word terrorist is one of the easiest words that we use, listen to the news and count how many times it is metioned.

When the people are opressed by their leader and they want to do a revolution to get rid of him, is this terrorismus?? When this leader has more capabilities and uses the army could there be a revolution without blood??

One of the comments was of the frensh revolution, i would add another point, the nazi forced even the germans to go to the war, young men were forced to fight although they didn't want it, one of my family members died in this war, he didn't want to fight, but he died with 22 years, now for the frensh the germans all together were the terrorists, for the germans hitler was one. So the word is flexible, and depends on the prospective. People murdered in Palestine and Iraq, but they are considered as terrorists.

In an ideal world no one has the right to opress others, no leader his people, no country another, but we are not living in an ideal world, so there are no ideal solutions, and sometimes force is needed even if it is not right.

In the wars happening now, media are not fair, from each side you hear different stories, but the truth lies in between, the bad thing is that we listen only to one side.

20/4/07 17:43  
Blogger Jon said...

A terrorist is like a Colonist who hides out in the trees and shoots at British soldiers, making them fearful of traveling down a road. A terrorist is one who attacks with surprise, causing so much damage as to strike terror in the hearts of the establishment (or at least the other side). In this case we have a pretty good establishment here and we are being attacked by terrorists because they don't want us to have stuff when they do not.
The bully on the playground pushed and hit us, then used the rules against us by lying convincingly to the teacher and said "Oh, yeah? Whatcha gonna do about it?"
Terrorists today are no different, just more deadly. Know this: they have no constructive agenda. No good will ever come of their actions, only hurt and pain and sorrow, their only exports.

9/5/07 20:50  

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated. Please be patient - an admin will be along soon to check on the pending list.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home