The statement that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom - fighter" is most definitely true. The American Revolution is one key example of this. The revolutionaries obviously viewed themselves as freedom fighters, and because they won the war they are regarded as such in history. However, to the British government the actions of the revolutionaries could very well be defined as terrorism.
That being said, I do not believe that this has any implications for the policy towards terrorists. Those who we consider terrorists are treated as such, we do not go easy on them because they are freedom-fighters for their own cause. Take the current situation in Iraq for example. We hear about bombings almost every day and think about how out of control terrorism has become. It doesnt matter to us that the bombers only want the US out of their country, and in fact it can't. War is war and when two sides are fighting eachother there isn't necessarily time to think about the background and reasoning behind every explosion or suicide bombing. We must simply try to pervent the next one, keep our people safe, and push back our enemies. We may not all like it, and we certainly may not all agree with it but that is the way it is regardless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What if it did matter? For instance we treat the Kurds differently than other groups in Iraq. Most states in that area think Kurds are terrorists but we differentiate and treat them differently as a result.
Post a Comment