I have a question on the addage; One persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
How and when is it ok to use terrorism as a method to promote political change? The question was raised and I believe it deserves a debate amongst the finest and most fertile minds of the Mormon Armchair Pundits.
Here is my opinion. When we use the word terrorism it ignites fear and panic, and usually an angst feeling of being immoral. When the colonialist raided the barter ships and threw over the tea with their faces painted black and their lean loins covered in only a squirrel skin, was that not terrorism? Or when they invoked guerilla tactics to scare the British lines and instill fear. Was this terrorism? Was it justified? And if it was, is terrorism justified?
I think it was absolutely terrorism or was it freedom fighting. Can it be both?
Remember when the valiant El Capitan Moroni armed his Nephite warriors with breastplates and headplates? The Libro de Mormon stated that the Lamanites in fear fled before the Nephites because of the great slaughter that they were receiving by the hands of the Nephites. These tactics were used by Moroni and by our greatest President, George Washington, because they worked and, when fighting a war you use what works. We believed that our cause was the greater cause and despite God being on our side, we used terror tactics. Were they justified in using terror tactics?
The justification must come from the cause in which they fought. It seems however that when applying justification to a tactic, it must be true for all. Are the terrorist justified in using such tactics against us?
2nd part; Now that we live in the United States under our glorious Constitution, can we as citizens ever being justified again in using terrorism within our own country to evoke change? Would we be considered terrorists or freedom fighters?
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Moral Terrorism
Posted by Head Master, Society of Saints at 2:55 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I think President Bush defined this issue best in his interview with Brit Hume. He said that terrorists use violence to harm the innocent. We are justified because we are trying to protect the innocent.
In your 2 examples, they are both instances where terrorism was not used. They were not targeting the innocent to make a point. The minutemen were fighting a tyrannical government through relatively peaceful means. They did not go to England and start burning the homes of the English. They threw a bunch of tea in the sea. And like Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
They believed in a higher vision. They believed that the rights of human beings were being violated, so they fought to overthrow them. The English were the tormenters, we were the liberators.
Moroni was in the same boat. He had commisioned his people to fight for the "Title of Liberty.." For Family.. For Country. The Lamanites and the Gadiontons were always for blood, revenge and power.
I guess these tactics are the classic example of the ends justifying the means. There must be violence in order to secure the liberty of the human race.
Post a Comment