jrw@princeton.UUCP (Jeffrey Westbrook) (10/06/86)
In article <1551@watdragon.UUCP> brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) writes: > >In many ways, the resistance were terrorists. The germans certainly looked >at them that way. Generally, the only difference between 'freedom >fighters' and 'terrorists' is whether you agree or disagree with what they >are fighting for. > > Bruce Kirby I am afraid I must object. The French Resistance was a guerilla army. It had definable military objectives. It attacked military targets and officials, soldiers, and colloborationists of the Nazi occupation forces. The Resistance did not attack German, Italian, or Japanese civilians in order to further its ends. We can be pretty comfortable regarding them as freedom fighters, especially since their opponents were so morally reprehensible. Certainly, the line between terrorism and freedom fighter is sometimes blurry. But not all terrorists are equivalent. An IRA terrorist is not necessarily the same as a Palestinian terrorist. If a Palestinian attacks a West Bank Israeli official or soldier, he might be considered a guerilla fighter. He regards the Israelis as invaders, and he is striking at an element of the occupation force. On the other hand, if an IRA fighter kills a British soldier, he is much more clearly in the wrong. Northern Ireland has a democratically elected government in which both Protestants and Catholics participate, and the soldiers are there to guarantee the choice of the people. (Ok, it's not quite so simple, but the point remains valid.) I think we all have an intuitive notion of what we really mean by terrorism. A terrorist is the kind of person who goes and leaves a bomb in an airport with the express hope of killing civilians. There is no military objective; the only point is to dramatize the plight of some group or other. In fact, increasingly these days it seems like there's no point at all. It's just the easiest way for a person with a grievance to strike out and get some kind of revenge. There is not much difficulty in regarding this as evil. So where is the contradiction? This is not to justify solving terrorism by going out and clobbering somebody. I quite agree with Bruce Kirby and some of the other posters, including myself, that reprisals just aren't an answer. From a simply practical point of view, we cannot kill every possible terrorist, and of course such a policy is quite morally indefensible. If we wish to remain true to our democratic and ethical principles, we just have to buckle down, keep security tight, and try and solve the political causes Oh well... J Westbrook that motivate terrorism.