Colext/Macondo Cantina virtual de los COLombianos en el EXTerior --------------------------------------------------
Mi pregunta es, ¿a quién le aplicaríamos el epíteto de "freedom fighter" y a quién el de "terrorist" (sea como sea que traduzcamos en chibcholombiano) si estuviéramos en estos momentos en LoCulombia? PANG======== ==================================== Subject: Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter a fine one http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_8389 51 Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter? That question will bedevil our government and many of its uneasy allies as they pursue what President Bush promises will be a global war on terrorism. Osama bin Laden was a "freedom fighter" when the CIA-backed mujahideen were waging war on the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. Now he's a terrorist condemned by all but a few rogue nations. Yet in his own perverted logic he's still a freedom fighter, seeking to free the holy land of Saudi Arabia from "occupation" by American troops, from American "exploitation" of its oil and from a "corrupt" and "godless" Saudi royal family. He also is trying to free Iraq from U.S. sanctions and aerial bombardment; Palestine from Israeli occupation; Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria and other pro-Western Arab nations from their secular rulers; Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians from domination by Christian Serbs; Chechen Muslims from rule by Russia; Filipino Muslims from rule by the Catholic majority; Kashmiri Muslims from Hindu rule; Muslim Uighurs from Chinese rule; Indonesian Muslims from having to share some of their islands with Indonesian Christians; and Central Asian Muslims from their post-Soviet bosses. Bin Laden's alliances with other terrorist groups give him a seemingly endless list of causes. There is even a suspicion that he has armed, trained or funded the Irish Republican Army, though no one can explain why an Islamic fundamentalist with almost unlimited wealth would want to involve himself in a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Pakistan, which supported the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan and, by extension, bin Laden's al-Qaida network of terrorist bases, has turned against both, winning Bush's gratitude and a host of financial rewards for joining the American-led coalition. But Pakistan still provides bases, arms, funding and military support for Muslim "freedom fighters" in Kashmir. India calls them "terrorists." Monday's suicide car bombing at the Srinagar legislature, which killed 38 people, was certainly a terrorist act, which makes them legitimate targets of Bush's war. But do we really want to take sides in the Indo-Pakistani rivalry? We were on the same side as bin Laden in supporting Balkan "freedom fighters." When Slobodan Milosevic was in charge of what's left of Yugoslavia, the United States armed and trained Bosnian Muslims and later Kosovo Albanians battling the Serbs. So did bin Laden, who sent several hundred mujahideen to establish a European beachhead for his holy war. The Serbs, of course, couldn't understand why we were helping what they called Muslim "terrorists" -- not only terrorists but drug smugglers who funded their struggle for a Greater Albania by bringing Afghan heroin to Europe. And they were outraged when we bombed Yugoslavia to save the Kosovo Liberation Army from almost certain defeat by Serbian forces. There is no question that the KLA worked hand-in-glove with the Albanian mafia, which was heavily involved in the drug trade, a fact conveniently overlooked by Washington as long as the Albanian guerrillas were destabilizing Milosevic's regime. They only became "terrorists" after the KLA metamorphosed into the National Liberation Army and turned its sights on Macedonia. The Kurds are "terrorists" when they wage war against the government of NATO ally Turkey but "freedom fighters" when they take on Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq. The Shiites in southern Iraq also are "freedom fighters" in opposing Saddam but risk being labeled "terrorists" if they align themselves with neighboring Iran. President Bush's father encouraged both groups to rise up against Saddam after the Gulf War, but did nothing to help them when the Iraqi dictator crushed both rebellions. The fear then was that Iraq would disintegrate along ethnic lines, leaving a weak Sunni center, a powerful Kurdish north that would prove troublesome to Turkey and a Shiite south joining or allied with Iran. The Palestinians regard themselves as "freedom fighters" against Israeli occupation, a view shared by all the nations of the Middle East. Although most Arab and Islamic countries have offered at least moral support for Bush's war on terrorism, they draw a clear distinction between bin Laden's brand of international terrorism and Palestinian "resistance." Yet suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- such as the ones that blew up a disco crammed with Israeli teen-agers and a pizza parlor filled with mothers and children -- were heinous terrorist acts criticized by many in the Palestinian community. There has, in fact, been considerable debate among Palestinian clerics and senior officials in Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority about what is a legitimate target. Some say all Israelis are fair game because they represent a "foreign occupying power." Others say only settlers and the Israeli military should be hit, with attacks limited to occupied territory -- i.e., the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Arafat, for one, says Israel proper and Israeli civilians should be left unharmed. He claims to have no control over the Islamic terrorists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad; Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says he does and calls him "our bin Laden." But Sharon failed to persuade Bush to reject Arafat's offer of help in the war on terrorism, and the Palestinian leader is now a member of the coalition. Will we go after Arafat if members of his own Fatah organization commit some terrorist outrage against Israelis? And will we go after Syria for hosting the so-called "Rejection Front," another coalition of Palestinian groups opposed to Arafat and opposed to making peace with the Jewish state? Both actions would set the Arab world against us, exposing us to more terrorism, perhaps, than bin Laden could manage. Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite militia sponsored by Iran, is clearly a terrorist organization. It kidnapped 90 foreigners in the 1980s, including 17 Americans; blew up our embassay, Marine barracks and French military quarters in Beirut and, more recently, is said to have formed an alliance with al-Qaida. It may even have been involved in the Sept. 11 atrocity. Does that mean we go after Iran, and get every Shiite in the world on our backs? For that matter, do we go after the IRA or militant Protestant groups after the next terrorist attack in Northern Ireland? Do we help the Russians fight their Chechen "terrorists?" And do we help China suppress its Muslim "terrorists" in Xinjiang Province? Bush has to be very careful that his war on terrorism does not come to be seen as a war on Islam, something that would play right into the terrorists' hands. He also has to be careful not to get sucked into other people's liberation wars simply because the governments they are fighting call them "terrorist." But it is hard to see how Bush can avoid it after telling all the nations of the world: "You're either with us or against us." Some of those who are with us will doubtless ask him to put his money -- or his troops -- where his mouth is. Holger Jensen is international editor. E-mail: October 4, 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE COLEXT as the BODY of the message. Un archivo de colext puede encontrarse en: http://www.mail-archive.com/colext@talklist.com/ cortesia de Anibal Monsalve Salazar
