Elkins 1

Michael Elkins
UWRIT 1103-051
Mrs. Thomas
April 12, 2016
Looking at the other Perspective
Writing this paper was tough because of the fact no many people want to look at
the other perspective including myself. So when writing this paper it was hard to not put
too much of my own biases into the discussion. I also felt like I had to explain what the
academic version of a terrorist is, because technically speaking there is no agreed upon
definition of a terrorist. Which is why I giving my own definition of a terrorist based off
what most academics in the field gave as their own definition. Overall I feel like this
paper has given a good answer to my question even if the answer is only my opinion.
There once was a man who lives in Syria, has lived there all his life, he is now
twenty and a revolutionary war has started. He joins the side who he believes has the
people's best interest in mind, when he is told to explode a bomb in a public square
where supporters of the opposition are known to congregate. In this example is the
Syrian man a terrorist or is he a freedom fighter who is following the orders of his
superiors.
As Walter Laqueur, an American historian and political commentator, states in his
book Terrorism The terrorist (we are told) is the only one who really cares; he is a
totally committed fighter for freedom and justice, a gentle human being forced by cruel

Elkins 2

circumstances and an indifferent majority to play heroic yet tragic roles (Laqueur 3).
But by Laqueurs own definition of a terrorist could you define a freedom fighters
perspective: A committed fighter to his/her fight for freedom and justice, typically
someone who has been walked on one too many times or forced to act due to cruel
circumstances. So the question truly is, is one persons terrorist another persons
freedom fighter.
If we continue to use this reasoning then men and women in any military in the
world could be considered a terrorist, because each is a committed fighter for his/her
own country that is ordered to fight, a cruel circumstance that the soldier is put into. I
believe that Laqueurs statement regarding terrorism is true if the risk factors that Dr.
Ansar Haroun, a psychologist with a degree in psychology from the King Edward
Medical University, put forth in his article Psychiatric Evaluation of suspected terrorists
difficult in the journal Psychiatric Annals. The risk factors that Dr. Haroun puts forth in
his article include: biologic, moral, and cultural. If these risk factors are included in how
a psychiatrist determines if someone is a terrorist along with what Jerrold M. Post, a
professor of psychiatry in political psychology and international affairs and Director of the
Political Psychology Program at The George Washington University, states [Terrorism] is the
violence or the threat of violence against non-combatants in order to gain a political, ideological,
or religious goal through fear and coercion. I believe that this is the best definition for terrorism,
so using Posts definition of what terrorism is I believe that the definition of a terrorist can be
defined.
The definition that I believe encompasses both the definition that Post gives as terrorism
and the risk factors that Dr. Haroun states that psychologists have to consider when determining
if someone is a terrorist or not is: A person who has psychological tendencies of a psychopath

Elkins 3
but creates violence or the threat of violence against non-combatants to obtain a personal goal;
such as a political, ideological, or religious. This definition takes into the account the factors
that would affect the biologic and moral risk factors that Dr. Haroun stated in his article. The only
factor that this definition does not take into account is the cultural risk factor, this risk factor I
believe should be looked at in a different light than the other two factors.
The reason why the cultural risk factor should be considered differently is because of
many peoples biased against other religions or ethnicities. There have been many examples of
biased based just off of someone's religion. For example, a blogger named Jeremy, who is a
Shia Muslim which is the minority of the two denominations in the Muslim world (only about ten
percent of all Muslims follow it (BBC News 1)), explains in his blog an encounter he had with an
ISIS supporter who openly acknowledges his disdain for Shia Muslims. In his blog Jeremy
explains how the man has grown up in an environment where people blamed many problems
that they faced on Shia Muslims. It wasnt until the Jeremy had spent several hours with the
man did he explain that he was a Shia Muslim and then went on to explain the myths that the
man stated about Shia Muslims, only then did the man have a different opinion on Shia
Muslims.
Another example of bias can be seen in Americas history to its own people. The Civil
rights movement in the 50s and 60s exemplifies the biased that people can have on races. In
Americas South there were laws that were only created to give blacks a disadvantage to whites
in all aspects of life. Shops that had white owners could deny black customers service solely
based on the color of their skin. The owners were protected by the law through the Supreme
Court's decision in the Plessy v Ferguson case which stated that equality was maintained as
through the thinking of separate but equal.
If we bring in Stanley Michalak, a professor of government at Franklin and Marshall
college, who stated that the four myths of terrorism are: [Myth 1] Terrorist are idealists who

Elkins 4
represent the oppressed in the most oppressive societies, [Myth 2] Terrorists are a function of
social forces or root conditions, [Myth 3] Terrorism is a response to repressive governments,
[Myth 4] Multinational co-operation is essential for defeating international terrorism (Michalak
1). The first myth Michalak denies that terrorists are representatives of the oppressed,
[terrorists] have almost always come from the well-educated, middle-class families (Michalak
1). I agree with Michalak that most terrorists come from upper and middle class families, if
looking at more recent history Osama bin Laden one of the most notorious terrorists in the
twentieth century was actually western educated and came from a wealthy family. In fact, most
terrorists are western educated, but try to create their idealized version of society. Such as ISIS
version of a totally encompassing Muslim caliphate that does not include Shia Muslims.
Michalak also disagrees with myth two that terrorists are a function of social conditions,
he points out that while almost anything may precipitate terrorist activity, almost nothing always
does (Michalak 1). This statement qualifies myth two because as he says someone can always
look at a situation and say yes this was a cause for this group to become terrorists, but that
doesnt mean that the cause is the actual reason. Meaning it is more than likely one can look at
any number of reasons and say this is the cause this person is a terrorist and that reason can
be completely different than what the other person has said. In other words, myth two has no
valid basis to say someone is a terrorist because the social conditions that one person may
say is the cause can be the exact opposite of someone elses reasoning.
In myth three Terrorism is a response to repressive governments, isnt necessarily right
but it isnt necessarily wrong. Meaning that repressive governments can help in forming a
terrorists organization but it can also prevent one from forming as well. Historically repressive
governments have had little to no terrorist organizations because of the repressive nature of the
regime. For example, North Korea is less likely to form a terrorist organization then the United
States, because of the regimes restriction on public access to world events as well as the

Elkins 5
propaganda the government feeds to its people. While in the US the people have the freedom to
look at what is happening in the world and state their opinion on how the government responds
to different situations. Which allows the people to cause violence against the government but
that violence would first happen on the streets of cities. A more recent example of this is the
race riots that occurred in Ferguson Missouri this past year. Now I am not calling the protestors
terrorists, but the acts that happened on the streets such as the burning of cars, and the
throwing of Molotov cocktails at police could be considered terrorist activity.
Myth four which states Multinational co-operation is essential for defeating international
terrorism I agree with Michalak in that to hit the center, meaning the main sponsors of
international terrorist activity. (Michalak 2), is the only way to stop international and domestic
terrorism. However, with democracies it is not as easy to come together and put their military
power and money to stop terrorism and terrorist activities. It is only after the public has accepted
that these terrorists groups and terrorists themselves need to be stopped will governments be
able to effectively stop terrorism. In other words, it is not until the terrorists groups and
organizations affect the public will the government in a democratic nation put forth effort to fight
terrorism. This is seen today with the terrorist group ISIS and the western powers, the western
powers didnt really give ISIS that much thought until they started killing their civilians and
started to affect their public transports on their soil. For example, Frances government, even
though they did give aid to the fight against ISIS, didn't put as much effort into it as they could've
until ISIS attacked them on their own soil.
Now after explaining my definition of a terrorist and the problems that occur through
them and terrorist organizations I can go back to my original question is one persons terrorist
anothers freedom fighter. I believe the answer is no, because as described above a terrorist is
someone who is creating violence to non-combatants. Because of this I believe you cannot call
someone a freedom fighter when they are attacking basically civilians. Unlike a freedom fighter

Elkins 6
who is fighting a repressive government or an invading country, a terrorist is not. This is what I
believe sets freedom fighters apart from terrorists.
Although one can argue that as a freedom fighter continues on with their fight, they will
inevitably harm non-combatants, the difference between the harm that is caused through the
freedom fighter and the harm that is caused by a terrorist is distinctly different. The harm that
the freedom fighter causes isnt necessarily part of the overall fight, while the basic definition of
a terrorist is to cause violence on non-combatants. Because of this there is a line that can be
drawn between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, a freedom fighter is a freedom fighter up to the
point where the campaign is focused on the fight for freedom but when the fight changes from
freedom to terrorizing the civilians for the purpose of turning them against the government then
that freedom fighter can now be considered a terrorist.
The answer to this question is not an easy one to answer, because of the similarities that
one can claim between the two fighters. I believe the best answer to the question is that a
freedom fighter isnt always a terrorist but all terrorist can be considered freedom fighters if
looking at their perspective. Because if you ask an ISIS fighter or a fighter for Al-Qaeda they will
say they are trying to free the Muslim world from western influences, but if you look at the rest of
the world they are considered terrorist organizations. A better example of this perspective can
be seen if looking at another perspective is the fact that the US government says that Iran is a
state that sponsors terrorism, but Iran of course denies this claim. So in that example depending
on the perspective one looks at one can say Iran sponsors terrorism or they sponsor freedom
fighters.

Elkins 7
Works Cited
BBC News. "Sunnis and Shia: Islam's Ancient Schism - BBC News." BBC News. BBC News, 4
Jan. 2016. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.
Gold, Steven N., and Jerrold M. Post. "The Psychology of the Terrorist." The Journal of Trauma
Practice 1.3-4 (2002): 83-100. Print.
Jeremy. A Shias First Night of Ramadhan Spent with an ISIS Supporter. Web log post. The
Islamic Perspective. Np., 23 June, 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
Haroun, Ansar. "Psychiatric Evaluation of Suspected Terrorists Difficult." Psychiatric Annals
33.11 (2003): 738-42. ArticleFirst [OCLC]. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
Laqueur, Walter. Origin. Terrorism. Boston: Little, Brown,1977. 3-20. Print