"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

I find it odd that the U.S. was created by what it itself calls terrorism now. In my Current World Problems class earlier this year, I had to write a paper comparing terrorism to freedom fighting. Here it is, if anyone is interested!


“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This quotation describes one of the most basic concepts one must understand when studying the diverse and truly frightening world of modern terrorism. After all, every terrorist (or freedom fighter) has a purpose for which they are fighting. History has proved that even though a certain group may perceive another to be terrorist, their cause is often one for freedom from an oppressing power. It all depends on the angle that you look at the issue.
The concept of terrorism was created thousands of years ago. It is essentially psychological warfare against an enemy’s people to cause terror so the fighting group can gain attention for its cause. In the ancient Roman-controlled Middle East, the Jewish Zealots targeted religious enemies and killed them on the streets. Their example was followed by many other oppressed religious groups, using broad-daylight killing to cause a state of terror to any possible enemies. More recently, the French Revolution involved terrorism to achieve the political ends of independence, and it was then that the term “terrorism” was introduced. It then evolved into a mainly politically-motivated tactic used by non-governmental groups to get attention for their various causes, such as the PLO fighting for a Palestinian homeland, or the al Queda causing terror to keep the United States out of Middle Eastern affairs.

One extremely overlooked example of terrorism, or freedom-fighting as we call it, was the United States’ battle for independence from Great Britain. American patriots struck terror into the hearts of the British controlling them by tarring and feathering them, lynching, burning effigies, and one outstanding act of terrorism; the Boston Tea Party. In this instance in 1773, the British East India Company helped pass the Tea Act of 1773 which taxed tea sold to Americans. Patriots rebelled at this “taxation without representation.” In Boston patriots led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians on the 16th of December, and boarded three ships, throwing all of the tea in them into the harbor. This act of rebellion widened the rift between the future-United States and Great Britain, eventually leading to independence for the nation. Even though Great Britain labeled these patriots “terrorists” they are seen now as freedom fighters for American independence.

Another example in the United States of terrorism viewed as freedom fighting is John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in Virginia prior to the Civil War. In 1858, Brown gathered a group of men to fight for what they believed would bring about a sooner end to slavery in the Southern state. On October 16, 1859, the group attacked Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, and seized the town. After a few deaths, fighting, and a prolonged flight from the place that left more destruction, John Brown was captured, and executed. To Southerners he was a terrorist, causing mayhem for the end of slavery that they did not agree with. But to abolitionists, he was a martyr; a person willing to fight for the end of slavery through rebellious and violent means.

Though an unlikely match, these two events in United States history that are generally considered fights for freedom can be compared to attacks by Iraqi “insurgents” who are thought of as freedom fighters by their own country. The United States has gone into Iraq and basically taken over the country. The Iraqis killing U.S. soldiers are seen as terrorists by America, but to those people the insurgents and terrorists are really freedom fighters, trying to get back control of their country. How is this different from the United States rebelling against Great Britain’s control, or John Brown fighting for an end to slavery?

Terrorism and freedom fighting can be seen from many different viewpoints. Though terrorism is by no means the best way to accomplish any sort of goal, sometimes it is the only way a group has to express itself and make its point known. The United States may have never become an independent nation without the rebellion of Patriots, and the South and North may still be separated if it weren’t for John Brown’s unruly raid on Harper’s Ferry in Virginia. The end to Iraqi insurgent violence is yet to be seen, but they are employing tactics long-used in a variety of political arenas throughout history.

 

Good shit man; shows the hypocrisy of the US, at least in the name of its big campaign - "the war on terror."

One day in a physics class, my overtly republican physics teacher was rambling on about terrorism and such, and a student said "Wouldn't it have been terrorism when we fought the British for Independance?" The teacher blew up, got super pissed, said "NO! we fought bravely for independance. We didn't attack then run and hide under a rock." or something to that effect. I was tempted to point out that colonists that fought the british used geurilla warefar tactics, such as shooting from behind trees or ROCKS at British forces who marched in lines in plain sight. If it wasn't for this method of fighting, the colonists probably would have lacked any hope of attaining independance.

 

During the War of Independance, more bullets were aimed at soldiers than at civilians.

While the label "terrorist" has been used as a propaganda tool, there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

 

You know, you've got a point there.

 

I don't remember the American revolutionaries targeting civilians, schools, churches, homes, businesses, etc. Nor did John Brown, for that matter. The revolutionaries fought king george's soldiers, and John Brown struck the federal government armory at harper's ferry. I see no similarity between them and the homicide bombers, and al qaeda, and those who target the innocent out of cowardice and impotence. And don't call the terrorists in iraq "insurgents". They are not native iraqi citizens fighting for freedom, they are foreigners seeking to further enslave the iraqis, and capitalize on the instability. They are definitely not insurgents (look it up).