Introduction to Terrorism - Essay Sample

Introduction

Passive resistance is a form of resistance where people use non-violent methods to express their opinions on a matter especially politically. It mainly used to oppose a government's activities by merely refusing to be part of them or by choosing not to participate in them. This was a technique which was initialized by Mahatma Gandhi who believed that there were better ways of causing a revolution and opposing the government activities other than by the use of violence which would lead to a lot of bloodshed and loss of lives. Hence the following essay seeks to explain some of the familiar concepts around activism, terrorism, and freedom fighting in general and how the line is drawn between those aspects surrounding resistance (Lakoff, 1971).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Question Two

Terrorist are people who instill fear into peoples lives by committing acts of violence such as bombings to send a message to the government or to punish a government for wrongs they believe they have committed. Terrorists are usually very crude people and most times they end up hurting hundreds to thousands of innocent people to prove a point. Freedom fighters, on the other hand, are people who take part in a revolutionary movement most of the time in pursuit of getting freedom from an oppressive government or a colony.

Often people confuse these two groups of people, and some people believe that there is no difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. It is easy to understand so because some of the actions are almost aligned. For example, some freedom fighters use acts of violence to drive the unwanted government away, and in the process, they may end up killing and hurting many people in a mess, whether innocent or guilty. In the case of a colonial government, the freedom fighters would target anyone who is affiliated with the government and harass them in pursuit of surrender. Innocent children end up being killed or kidnapped in the process because they believe that showing a little violence would lead the colonial government into submission.

Terrorists on the other can attack a shopping mall with people from all walks of life and shoot everyone they see to send a message of fear to the government. Both terrorists and freedom fighters look for ways to send a message to the government to make them fear and eventually give in to their demands. Freedom fighters have for the longest time been celebrated in their countries for fighting and restoring freedom into their states regardless of the methods they used to get there (Primoratz, 2004).

Terrorists also believe that they have done well despite killing multiple people to make their demands heard. These two groups of people have employed the art of hostage-taking and intimidation until their needs are listened to by the governments hence why one would believe that the two operate on the same principles. Furthermore, there are demands that they are always making and when they are met they appease a particular group and that's why even though one might look at an individual as a terrorist another person will look at them as a freedom fighter because they helped their demands to be heard or led a government into submission and surrender.

In addition to that, both freedom fighters and terrorists would go to extreme levels to ensure that their cries have been heard. This would mean attacking infrastructure meant for the "oppressors" and some of these groups even go to the extent of harming the people involved. At that moment they all believe that they are doing those actions for the better good, to salvage themselves from oppression.

However, the most precise and distinct feature between terrorists and freedom fighters is their strategies and their causalities and also their methods. Freedom fighters always ensure that they leave little to no casualties in their struggle whereas terrorists do not care how many people have to die for them to send their message forth. Freedom fighters often apologize when they realize that their actions have gone further than they intended them to be. Terrorists, on the other hand, find pleasure when people continuously live in fear, and they find joy in instilling fear into people's lives (Best, Nocella, 2004).

Nonetheless, many people are convinced that the difference between these two groups is in an individual's perception, hence why it becomes hard to distinguish these two groups of people. When a freedom fighter tries to fight for the oppressed someone may look at them as a terrorist because they are causing some unrest in society and they view them as a terrorist. While a terrorist is killing innocent civilians and making people live in fear, someone may be convinced that they are fighting for their freedom and their rights and hence why it has become so hard to distinguish the two groups.

Question Three

People have been made to believe that the only way they can be heard is by raising some havoc and violence. Oppressed people have been brainwashed to think that if they want their freedom back, blood has to be shed and millions of people have to die for a revolution to take place. However, that is not true because so many people have been able to articulate their issues by use of non-violent means and in the end, they have ended up making huge impacts in their societies (Gandhi, 2012).

Passive resistance as demonstrated by Mahatma Gandhi has proven to be a very effective method of being heard and gaining the control that people require. This is achieved merely by ensuring that there is no violence but instead peacefully declining to follow the rules and policies of the government or body that they are against. Several countries have achieved freedom, their opinions have been heard, and change has been implemented without the use of violence (Bhattacharyya, 1965).

First of all, non-violent means usually give hope to the people they represent because they are looking out for their interests by not showing violence to the government. Most of the times these nonviolent groups have their issues meticulously articulated for the government, and they do things like wearing clothes of a particular color or avoiding some services until their voices have been heard.

As a result, many people get behind such movements regardless of whether they are from the same background because they are people who are usually providing alternatives for the way that they are typically treated. A violent resistance would solely focus on mass destruction and killing people, but they would not have a long-term goal for development after the war is over. Most of the times non-violent actions usually have a peaceful transition into power, and they often use counter parallel methods to rules and implement rules.

Examples of a non-violent resistance that worked were the one that was witnessed in the solidarity of Poland which later on developed into some shadow government as it was able to step into the government and ran things smoothly after the previous leadership had failed. The Russian revolution led to the successful collapse of the czarist system. A series of strikes in the Soviet Union camps led to the provision of better living conditions. The people power of Philippine led to the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship. These among other non-violent resistance succeeded, and they have continued to thrive to this day to show how useful they can be instead of resulting to violence (Roberts, 1967).

References

Lakoff, R. (1971). Passive resistance (pp. 149-162). The University of Michigan.

Bhattacharyya, B. (1965). Evolution of the political philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi, M. K. (2012). Non-violent resistance. Courier Corporation.

Primoratz, I. (2004). State terrorism and counter-terrorism. In Terrorism (pp. 113-127). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Best, S., & Nocella, A. J. (Eds.). (2004). Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals. Lantern Books.

Roberts, A. (Ed.). (1967). The Strategy of Civilian Defence: Non-violent Resistance to Aggression. London: Faber.