There are countless definitions of terrorism given in numerous dictionaries, which describe the various perceptions of terrorism. The American revolutionaries were regarded as terrorists by the British Empire during the War of Secession while the former saw themselves as freedom- fighters. The same can be said of the French resistance during World War 2. Allied forces saw and dealt with them as resistance fighters while the Nazis saw and treated them as terrorists. The “one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom- fighter” cliché can be applied time and again: Soviet forces regarded the Afghan mujahedeen as terrorists during their occupation of Afghanistan while the USA saw them as freedom fighters. An extraordinary exchange between the counsel for the defence of terrorism publications suspect Ahmad Faraz - who was charged with disseminating books like Syed Qutbs classic, Milestones - and a crown prosecution terrorism expert witness at trial in Kingston Crown Court in 2011 illustrates the paradox changing definitions of terrorism. The defence counsel asked, hypothetically, if the prosecution witness regarded a 17-year old Afghan boy who fired an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) at a tank of occupying Soviet forces during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan as a terrorist. The witness replied in the negative. Defence then asked, if the witness believed the same boy, 15 years later, using the same rocket-launcher, fires an RPG at a tank of US occupation forces. The initial incoherent response was most telling, after which the witness agreed with the defence that terrorism didnt occur in either case. Of course Soviet forces would most certainly have disagreed. Moazzem Beg
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:57:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015