Freedom and Terrorism
One of the problems of the fight against terrorists lies in the terminological area. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism – therefore, the same people or organizations are often called "terrorists" and "freedom fighters." This uncertainty makes it possible to use the term "terrorism" in accordance with current political, religious, and other interests. In fact, the word "terrorism" has become a stigma and ideological stamp often used in the wrong meaning. It plays into the hands of terrorists and allows them to engage in propaganda, attract supporters, and recruit people to become new members of their organizations.
Terrorist methods have been used by many political organizations, religious groups, and states from the beginning of human civilization. The word "terrorism" was first introduced into mass use after the French Revolution (1789-1744) and the "revolutionary terror" organized by the Jacobins. Today, many American experts are inclined to believe that terrorism is not a separate phenomenon but a method for achieving goals. That is, it is impossible to destroy terrorism, as it is impossible, for example, to prohibit the use of artillery or political rallies. Many countries around the world, including Ireland, Algeria, and Tunisia, have achieved independence by using terrorist methods of struggle.
Security and the Fight Against Terrorism
The most controversial issue today is the definition of the boundaries between individual freedom and national security. Politicians of various ideological forces have been discussing this problem for many years, but it is the most acute now. The world has evolved to the highest point of development – humanism, tolerance, and equality have become the ideological core of all developed countries. However, at the same time, terrorism is developing.
Popular politicians of our time usually offer censorship as measures of combating terrorism (restricting freedom of speech and the media, spying on citizens, and other similar measures). Can they exist in a democratic system? It is unlikely that total control will definitely destroy freedom. Nevertheless, can it provide security? Is it possible to defeat terrorism without losing democracy? Some critics often blame the emergence of the modern democratic world order for terrorism. They argue that terrorism developed with the advent and development of democracy. In their opinion, freedom of speech, privacy, and the media are called facts favorable to terrorism.
Freedom of Speech and Security
The alienation of natural human rights and control over the person will not give positive results and will even exacerbate the situation. On the contrary, a market economy, social guarantees, freedom of speech and the media, humanism, and tolerance guarantee the elimination of terrorism. Therefore, democracy is not a source of terrorism but salvation from it. It is also obvious that some states use terrorism as a pretext for control. The opposition is often accused of justifying terrorism. In many countries, the special services are spying on people, conduct searches of human rights activists, and tighten censorship under the guise of the fight against terrorism. They use terrorism to intimidate the population, and many people agree to be under control for the sake of security.
Summarizing the above, the conclusions can be made that terrorism has no religious, political, or other ideological boundaries. Its causes are poverty, inequality, and repressions, as well as the low culture level of the population. According to statistics, terrorism is flourishing in poor countries where people do not have access to education. The political elite often uses the fear of terrorism as an opportunity to limit human rights, to control the population and to preserve its power. Moreover, terrorism cannot be defeated by force and control. Only progress and democracy will overcome it.