Global rise in terrorism?
That is not the title of this blog, it is a question. It is a question that I ask a lot. I constantly seek an answer to this question. Is there really a global rise in terrorism? On the face of it, it would seem that yes, there is a drastic rise in terrorism and other related terrorist activities. One would perhaps say that now in every corner of the globe there is strife and turmoil. Of course, I am assuming that all who say this, know exactly what terrorism is.
But that is what it looks like on the surface. And appearances can be deceiving. Lets look at some instances where there have been incidents of violence, death, killings and kidnappings, among other things that come under this general sphere.
Ok, I started this a while back but never completed it, and so I am going to try and wrap it up as briefly as possible. The reason I asked this question was because the word terrorism is now used so often that the picture has become quite blurred. How does one differentiate betweeen terrorism or violence that is the result of violence committed against the current perpetrators?
For example there are several freedom struggles going on in the world, there are civil wars and there is infighting. But who decides if a certain act is an act of vilence, or merely the last ditch effort of a struggle against oppression that has subjugited them to such a extreme degree of oppression that they resort to violence of an equally extreme degree to make their voice heard.
There are many such examples, the Chechens want independance, the Kashmiris want the right to a free homeland, numerous African state are still ruled by their European colonial masters by proxy. If there is infighting or civil strife in these countries one needs to look beyond the obvious, beyond what is on the surface to try and get a complete understanding of the true picture.
I wonder of Che Guevara would today be termed a terrorist.
But that is what it looks like on the surface. And appearances can be deceiving. Lets look at some instances where there have been incidents of violence, death, killings and kidnappings, among other things that come under this general sphere.
Ok, I started this a while back but never completed it, and so I am going to try and wrap it up as briefly as possible. The reason I asked this question was because the word terrorism is now used so often that the picture has become quite blurred. How does one differentiate betweeen terrorism or violence that is the result of violence committed against the current perpetrators?
For example there are several freedom struggles going on in the world, there are civil wars and there is infighting. But who decides if a certain act is an act of vilence, or merely the last ditch effort of a struggle against oppression that has subjugited them to such a extreme degree of oppression that they resort to violence of an equally extreme degree to make their voice heard.
There are many such examples, the Chechens want independance, the Kashmiris want the right to a free homeland, numerous African state are still ruled by their European colonial masters by proxy. If there is infighting or civil strife in these countries one needs to look beyond the obvious, beyond what is on the surface to try and get a complete understanding of the true picture.
I wonder of Che Guevara would today be termed a terrorist.
posted by lone-ranger at 9:18 PM
0 Comments:
<< Home