Manuel E. Yepe: Differentiating Popular Insurrection From Terrorism (January 2015)

DIFFERENTIATING POPULAR INSURRECTION
FROM TERRORISM

By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/

A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.

Dictionaries define terrorism as "the systematic use of violence or threat of its use by non-state groups against individuals or larger groups, to achieve political objectives whose scope often transcends national boundaries ".

They define "state terrorism" as the same actions [i.e. use of violence or threat of its use] by a government against its own subjects or against conquered communities or communities it intends to conquer.

It has become a tradition, and remains a systematic practice today, for colonial metropolises, great powers and tyrannical governments to apply the label of "terrorist" to the methods that revolutionaries and patriots use in their emancipation struggles.

In the West, the media which serve the interests of the US superpower apply the label of "terrorist" to resistance fighters in the many countries where it has carried out its interventions and occupations. Its immense media power calls "terrorist" the actions of any patriotic resistance whose clear military inferiority forces them to organize in secret or irregular units which –operating outside universally-accepted military parameters– fights the armed forces of the invaders or occupiers

Therefore, there is a need to avoid the media trap and to differentiate between revolutionary methods of fighting and terrorist methods.

Based on my own experience as a fighter in the ranks of the insurrectional movement which defeated the dictatorship ruling in Cuba until the last day of 1958, I see several differences.

Revolutionary methods are associated with the aspirations of the general population; terrorist methods are strongly rejected by the population.

Revolutionary methods seek to transform the scenario and the asymmetric conditions of the struggle, raise the fighting morale of the masses, bring in new followers to the struggle, ridicule the repressive forces of the tyrannical regime, call the world's attention to the revolutionary war being waged, and denounce the unpopular character of the oppressive government.

Revolutionary forms of clandestine struggle aim at increasing popular support for its cause and, therefore, do not try to provoke panic but rather to promote the adhesion of the citizens instead.

Terrorist methods are used by criminal gangs, mafias, drug traffickers, right-wing paramilitary organizations and, in general, by mercenaries hired by powerful economic interests. They seek to impose their authority on the basis of the fear the population feels at the cruelty of their actions. These actions may be threats, warnings or direct punishment. They do not pretend to attract people to their cause but to impose their authority on the basis of fear.

Terrorism creates panic and causes the suffering and death of innocent people. Revolutionary methods serve popular aspirations, engender admiration at the dedication of those carrying out the actions, and call to fight and sacrifice for a just cause.

Therefore, it is advisable to distrust information linking popular resistance movements anywhere in the world with terrorism; and to examine each case in the light of the motivations and objectives of the combatants and the circumstances in which the fight is fought.

It is not right either to speak of good terrorists and bad terrorists. Washington usually shamelessly approves of “friendly dictatorships” while proclaiming itself a champion of democracy. It systematically applauds, promotes and finances the terrorist actions of its allies and its own intelligence and counterintelligence organizations while at the same time presenting itself as leading a war against terror. However, more people are becoming increasingly suspicious of this war or are rejecting it.

Terrorism could never be a method of struggle by revolutionaries, because it is contrary to the interests and aspirations of the peoples, and could never be associated with a popular cause.

Hence, it is possible to clearly identify the difference between terrorism and irregular methods of revolutionary struggle. But oppressive regimes cynically try to equate the two.

And the fact is that terrorism as a method of struggle is typical of fanatics or
of criminals who seek their own benefit at the expense of the common good; or of those greedy for power and wealth who despise others. Terrorism can never be the method of revolutionaries who struggle for the welfare and progress of humanity.

January 24, 2015.

		DIFFERENTIATING POPULAR INSURRECTION FROM TERRORISM By Manuel E. Yepe http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/ A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann. Dictionaries define terrorism as "the systematic use of violence or threat of its use by non-state groups against individuals or larger groups, to achieve political objectives whose scope often transcends national boundaries ". They define "state terrorism" as the same actions [i.e. use of violence or threat of its use] by a government against its own subjects or against conquered communities or communities it intends to conquer. It has become a tradition, and remains a systematic practice today, for colonial metropolises, great powers and tyrannical governments to apply the label of "terrorist" to the methods that revolutionaries and patriots use in their emancipation struggles. In the West, the media which serve the interests of the US superpower apply the label of "terrorist" to resistance fighters in the many countries where it has carried out its interventions and occupations. Its immense media power calls "terrorist" the actions of any patriotic resistance whose clear military inferiority forces them to organize in secret or irregular units which –operating outside universally-accepted military parameters– fights the armed forces of the invaders or occupiers Therefore, there is a need to avoid the media trap and to differentiate between revolutionary methods of fighting and terrorist methods. Based on my own experience as a fighter in the ranks of the insurrectional movement which defeated the dictatorship ruling in Cuba until the last day of 1958, I see several differences. Revolutionary methods are associated with the aspirations of the general population; terrorist methods are strongly rejected by the population. Revolutionary methods seek to transform the scenario and the asymmetric conditions of the struggle, raise the fighting morale of the masses, bring in new followers to the struggle, ridicule the repressive forces of the tyrannical regime, call the world's attention to the revolutionary war being waged, and denounce the unpopular character of the oppressive government. Revolutionary forms of clandestine struggle aim at increasing popular support for its cause and, therefore, do not try to provoke panic but rather to promote the adhesion of the citizens instead. Terrorist methods are used by criminal gangs, mafias, drug traffickers, right-wing paramilitary organizations and, in general, by mercenaries hired by powerful economic interests. They seek to impose their authority on the basis of the fear the population feels at the cruelty of their actions. These actions may be threats, warnings or direct punishment. They do not pretend to attract people to their cause but to impose their authority on the basis of fear. Terrorism creates panic and causes the suffering and death of innocent people. Revolutionary methods serve popular aspirations, engender admiration at the dedication of those carrying out the actions, and call to fight and sacrifice for a just cause. Therefore, it is advisable to distrust information linking popular resistance movements anywhere in the world with terrorism; and to examine each case in the light of the motivations and objectives of the combatants and the circumstances in which the fight is fought. It is not right either to speak of good terrorists and bad terrorists. Washington usually shamelessly approves of “friendly dictatorships” while proclaiming itself a champion of democracy. It systematically applauds, promotes and finances the terrorist actions of its allies and its own intelligence and counterintelligence organizations while at the same time presenting itself as leading a war against terror. However, more people are becoming increasingly suspicious of this war or are rejecting it. Terrorism could never be a method of struggle by revolutionaries, because it is contrary to the interests and aspirations of the peoples, and could never be associated with a popular cause. Hence, it is possible to clearly identify the difference between terrorism and irregular methods of revolutionary struggle. But oppressive regimes cynically try to equate the two. And the fact is that terrorism as a method of struggle is typical of fanatics or of criminals who seek their own benefit at the expense of the common good; or of those greedy for power and wealth who despise others. Terrorism can never be the method of revolutionaries who struggle for the welfare and progress of humanity. January 24, 2015.
		DISTINGUIR TERRORISMO DE INSURRECCIÓN POPULAR Por Manuel E. Yepe http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/ Los diccionarios identifican al terrorismo como “uso sistemático de la violencia, o amenaza de su uso, por grupos no estatales contra personas individuales o grupos más amplios, para lograr objetivos políticos cuyo alcance trasciende con frecuencia los límites nacionales”. Por “terrorismo de Estado” se define el accionar con esos fines de un gobierno contra sus propios súbditos o contra comunidades conquistadas o que pretende conquistar. Se ha hecho una tradición, y sigue siendo una práctica sistemática en la actualidad, que las metrópolis coloniales, las grandes potencias y los gobiernos tiránicos apliquen el calificativo de “terroristas” a los métodos de lucha que los revolucionarios y patriotas utilizan para sus enfrentamientos emancipadores. En Occidente, los medios de prensa que responden a los intereses de la superpotencia estadounidense imponen el calificativo de “terroristas” a los combatientes de la resistencia en los muchos países donde se han hecho sentir sus intervenciones y ocupaciones. Su inmenso poder mediático califica de “terrorismo” a las acciones de la resistencia patriótica, cuya inferioridad militar evidente le obliga a organizarse en unidades secretas o irregulares que, operando fuera de los parámetros castrenses universalmente aceptados, enfrentan a las fuerzas armadas del invasor u ocupante. De ahí la necesidad de esquivar esa trampa y distinguir los métodos revolucionarios de lucha de los métodos terroristas. Sobre la base de mi propia experiencia como combatiente de filas del movimiento insurreccional que derrotó a la dictadura imperante en Cuba hasta el último día de 1958, percibo varias diferencias. Los métodos revolucionarios se identifican con las aspiraciones del pueblo; los métodos terroristas son fuertemente rechazados por la población. Los primeros buscan transformar el escenario y las asimétricas condiciones de la lucha para elevar la moral combativa de las masas, atraer a la lucha a nuevas huestes, ridiculizar a las fuerzas represivas del régimen tiránico, llamar la atención del mundo a la guerra revolucionaria que se está librando y denunciar el carácter impopular del gobierno opresor. Las formas revolucionarias de lucha clandestina pretenden incrementar el apoyo del pueblo a su causa y por ello no intentan provocar pánico sino promover la adhesión de la ciudadanía. Los métodos terroristas son propios de bandas delictivas, mafias, narcotraficantes, organizaciones paramilitares de extrema derecha y, en general, de mercenarios al servicio de poderosos intereses económicos. Buscan imponer su autoridad sobre la base del temor de la población por la crueldad de sus acciones, que pueden tener carácter de amenazas, advertencias o ser directamente punitivas. No aspiran a atraer al pueblo a su causa sino a imponer su autoridad sobre la base del temor. El terrorismo genera pánico y provoca sufrimientos y muertes de personas inocentes. Los métodos revolucionarios se identifican con las aspiraciones populares, engendran admiración por la abnegación de quienes ejecutan las acciones y convocan a la lucha y al sacrificio en aras de una causa justa. Por eso es recomendable desconfiar de las informaciones que vinculan a los movimientos populares de resistencia en cualquier parte del mundo con el terrorismo y examinar cada caso a la luz de las motivaciones y los objetivos de sus combatientes, así como de las circunstancias en que se libra la lucha. Tampoco es lícito hablar de terroristas buenos y terroristas malos. Washington suele aprobar sin recato dictaduras amistosas (“friendly dictatorships”) y al mismo tiempo se proclama paladín de la democracia. Aplaude, promueve y financia sistemáticamente las acciones terroristas de sus aliados y de sus propias organizaciones de inteligencia y contrainteligencia y, al mismo tiempo, se presenta como líder de una guerra contra el terrorismo de la que cada vez más gente recela o rechaza. El terrorismo nunca podría ser un método de lucha de los revolucionarios porque es contrario a los intereses y aspiraciones de los pueblos y jamás podría identificársele con una causa popular. De ahí que sea posible identificar claramente la diferencia entre el terrorismo y los métodos irregulares de lucha revolucionaria que, cínicamente, los regímenes opresores tratan de equiparar con los primeros. Y es que el terrorismo, como método de lucha, es propio de fanáticos o de criminales que pretenden el bien propio en detrimento del bien común, o de ambiciosos de poder y de riquezas que desprecian a los demás, pero jamás podría ser el método de los revolucionarios, luchadores por el bienestar y el progreso de la humanidad. Enero 24 de 2015.