SITE PAGES

Home
Dystopiem
My Music
Politics
Philosophy
About Lou
Site Map

PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy Main Page
UT Instinct Chapters
UT Instinct Appendices
Articles List
Glossary & Notice

Go To Main Menu Below

Article 1

British Muslim Suicide Bombers

If this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary

Introduction

Although the purpose of this text is you help you understand I never feel it is of any use to explain ad nauseam the small nitty gritty details. The text here is to help YOU understand. It is your job, if you are so inclined, to consider and think about the reality of this subject. It is YOU who has to do the thinking. I will always try and include as much explanation as I think necessary. If you truly seek more understanding because I haven't supplied enough information, use the form below to let me know.

The Freedom Fighter - Who Do They Fight For?

Truth is an amazing thing. It is all around us. Mostly, it is NOT hidden. It is like a stone lying on the ground, waiting to be picked up. Yet there are times, and situations, when, despite how obvious and transparent it is, people are determined to accept ridiculous and unbelievable explanations rather than the straightforward plain and obvious truth.

This is a direct result of the UT Instinct, which is in every one of us, but rather than reading about the UT Instinct in the main section of this site (50 x A4 pages) just carry on. The reality of the explanation is obvious - though your acceptance of it idepends on just how much you want to understand. [You may be interested enough after this to wade through the UT Instinct theories in full elsewhere in this site.]

Throughout the sordid history of humankind there have been conflicts. In fact the history of humans IS a history of conflicts. The methods and aggressive implements used may have changed, but human nature has not. The 'political' ideology, and the vocabulary of justification, may have changed, but human instincts and savage driving forces have not.

It is very important to understand that the following does NOT only refer to those freedom fighters and terrorist organisations with which YOU disagree. It most certainly includes those with which you agree. It applies to them ALL.

Superficial Definition

The childish and superficial generally accepted understanding is that freedom fighters, or terrorists [I will interchange these terms throughout this article as they are different sides to the same coin - in most cases] are fighting for a cause, usually thought to be the freeing of their fellow citizens from an unjust, or illegal, dictatorial government. To minds unable to analyse and understand, it all seems to be sustained by that very respectable goal.

What could be more heroic than the seemingly altruistic struggle: that of fighting for freedom for the 'people', the citizens in order to obtain their freedom from oppression, their freedom from abuse, their freedom to be able to decide their own future, and seemingly even to the point of sacrificing one's own life for the 'cause' - for others! It all gives the appearance of an act of selflessness; the offering of oneself to the greater cause of freedom for 'the community'.

And, although in most people's minds there is shame in breaking civilised laws - which would normally be a reflection on the morals of the perpetrator - there is no shame in ignoring and breaking laws dictated by the 'oppressors' and 'inflicted on the oppressed people' - laws which maintain the subjugation of the people. Breaking these laws is seen as something to be proud of - defying the will of the oppressor.

True Definition

In straightforward plain terms - a freedom fighter is someone who decides that they will do anything to attain their own particular goals. If that means going outside the 'rule of law' so be it. They are willing to use force to get their own way. It is as simple as that. If you compare that definition with that of a criminal or gangster you should be able to see that there is very little difference.

Combat

Who are these freedom fighters fighting against? IN REAL TERMS. Are they fighting the oppressors? NO - not really. In truth they are fighting all those who oppose THEIR aims.

Whose regulations, controls and laws are they abiding by, for they have directly rejected the ordinary legal controls - as organised by the 'oppressors'? The answer is - their own; for they have rejected the wider community and governing-institution laws forced on them from above, and according to their subjective viewpoint this is 'right' and 'brave'. In reality, as proved often in many conflicts, they actually consider the act of obeying laws of the oppressors to be wrong and anyone who does abide by those laws is seen, to varying degrees, as an enemy.

Thus, in effect, these freedom fighters answer to no one, for their own values have become the controlling moral force.

Who are their enemies? Is it just the oppressors of the people? No. Is it just anyone who does not actively agree with their goal? No. In fact it is anyone who is not a member of that particular faction (freedom fighter group), and since the goal 'freedom' has become the 'god' and the justification for any actions considered 'necessary' - individuals, whether innocent or random, are suitable victims of savage treatment - the terrorist's obstacle to be overcome and neutralised.

The term 'obstacle' is appropriate. As their goal has become the moral criteria for all actions of the terrorists therefore any individual, no matter whom, who becomes an obstacle is 'the enemy'. Since these terrorist actions cannot be wrong (based on the goal being the god according to the terrorists), the criteria by which to judge any other person is supplied by the terrorists themselves.

All the terrorist needs to know is that a person is 'in the way' and preventing that terrorist from getting bes own way (not necessarily connected in any way with the 'struggle'). Whether you are an obstacle to the goal itself is not the deciding factor. It is whether you have become an obstacle to the freedom fighter beself. In other words be has become the moral centre of their universe.

Victory - For Whom?

In situations where the freedom fighters 'win' their struggle, power is taken from the old oppressors. In this new situation power automatically goes to those with the most determination, aggression and weapons - the freedom fighters. It all seems so logical. But there is a fundamental problem.

Who are these freedom fighters? They are the individuals who are the centre of their moral universe. They know what is right and wrong - they are not put in check by the morals of 'outsiders'. Thus, they know what is 'good for the people'. They are as sure now that they know what is right that, as they did in the past conflict when they were willing, and did, kill, steal, maim, torture and threaten others.

All the activities of the terrorists were NOT necessarily done with the consent of 'the people'. In fact in most cases these freedom fighters are self-contained autonomous groups who never looked for, or obtained, any blessing from the people.

The goal of the terrorists is the holy grail to be sought for without any outside restraint and no individual is ever going to be allowed 'get in the way'. People who oppose the will of these freedom fighters - the new rulers - the arbiters of what is justifiable, are seen as opposing the 'cause'. Thus a dictatorship, yet again, is born. The talk of fighting for the freedom of the people suddenly sounds flat and dishonest.

HISTORY - EXAMPLES - REALITY

Castro

To some people Castro was a freedom fighter. He freed Cuba from the misrule of Batista and his puppet-masters - the American gangsters and American corporations (there is very little difference, if any). He sent those gangsters and USA corporate terrorists back to the 'mainland'.

So did the Cuban people get the freedom they deserved? Of course not. Fidel Castro used force to obtain the political power and kept that power for himself to control and run Cuba as HE decided that it should be run.

He was never really fighting to obtain freedom for the Cubans - to give THEM power. He was determined that the freedom was for HIMSELF. The freedom to use whatever power he could obtain to control others and force them to live by his terms and his opinions and his whims. He is still determined to deny freedom to the Cuban people.

So, was he a freedom fighter - for the Cubans? NO! He was fighting for himself.

Mao Tse-Tung

To some people Mao was a freedom fighter. He fought for the freedom of the oppressed in China. Yet when he got power he kept it to himself at all costs and, because of his petty dictatorial attitude and his unquestioning certainty of his own mastery of social and financial planning, was the cause of the death of millions upon millions of Chinese.

In simple stark terms, the individual lives of the ordinary Chinese was of absolutely no concern whatsoever to Mao. Whether 1 million, 5 million or 10 million Chinese died in order to satisfy Mao's personal wishes, wasn't relevant to this monster. The Chinese were not given freedom from oppression. Once Mao got power he subjugation the whole nation. The Chinese people were never allowed to decide their own future.

So, was he truly a freedom fighter - for the Chinese? - NO!

Lenin (and Stalin)

To some people Lenin, and Stalin, were freedom fighters. They fought to overthrow the oppressive rule of the Tsars. But as soon as they succeeded they created one of the most despotic, cruel and oppressive systems of dictatorship where countless millions upon millions of Russians died.

Robert Mugabe

In Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, he fought for independence from Britain and, like all the other so called freedom fighters as soon as he got power his true motivations were demonstrated. He has now become just another selfish petty two-bit tin-pot dictator and the overseer of the starvation of the people of Zimbabwe and has surrounded himself with the Zanu political party, a political party which attracts the lowest form of citizen imagineable - those who are traitors to their Nation and feed off it at the expense of the poor and suffering citizens - actions which will leave the Nation as a dry dying husk after their wholesale thievery of all the natural resources.

The Irish Freedom Fighters

In the 1910s and 1920s (that is not to say there weren't other attempts) there was a concerted effort to end British rule in Ireland. These fighters were considered to be fighting for freedom of the people. Yet when they got power, as it always the case, some of them were reluctant to give that power to the people. Some thought that the people shouldn't be allowed to decide their future.

When there was a Treaty signed between Ireland and Britain Eamon de Valera, a so-called 'freedom fighter' rejected the decision of the Dail (the Irish parliament) to accept that Treaty. Subsequently, after an election to decide whether to accept the Treaty which was accepted by the majority, he rejected the result and thus directly started the Irish Civil War in the early 1920s.

Fortunately, for the Irish people, the side which considered the people of deserving the freedom to decide their own future 'won' the civil war and in Ireland there is a democracy (of sorts). But it shows the mind-set of some freedom fighters. They are determined to 'get their own way' - even if that means rejecting the wishes of the people. So one cannot, in truth, call them freedom fighters - certainly not as regards fighting for the freedom of the people to decide their own future.

Even today, 2011, there are still Irish 'Republicans' who do not recognize the validity of the Irish government, the Irish police force, and any other governmental force accepted by the people. The only government they will recognise is - THEIR OWN! They do not accept the wishes of the Irish people as per the Good Friday agreement referendum which allows the people of the North of Ireland to choose whichever jurisdiction they feel they belong to (at present the majority choose Britain).

These Republican Army terrorists consider themselves freedom fighters and yet it is not for any benefit of the Irish people that they fight. It is simply the case that these few individuals are not personally content with the political arrangement at present and according to them, their wishes are the only deciding factor as to whether they will kill innocent civilians. They would certainly be ruthless petty dictators if they ever got the chance.

Others Who Could Be On The List

The list could include the numerous other freedom fighters, both left wing and right wing (though, in fact, they are the 'ME-wing') who are determined to fight for the overthrow of oppressive 'governments' (or those they personally disagree with!).

These freedom fighters are willing to look upon the civilians as being expendable pawns in the struggle for power. Woe betide any person who disagrees with these freedom fighters. Nothing or no one is allowed get in their way.

Even the most blind among you should be able to see the truth behind all the freedom fighter rhetoric - the dishonest phrases and empty slogans.

Is there any fool out there who truly believes that they were fighting for the freedom of the people?

For Whom?

To oppose any victor after the overthrow of the previous dictators and corrupt regimes is seen in the minds of those freedom fighters as being a similar type of opposition as to when they were in the midst of their combat for freedom, and thus is seen as being against 'the people'. The problem is that the people have no say.

Whether a person is causing problems during the struggle or after makes no difference - they are 'in the way' of the terrorists and their selfish goals and are thus expendable. Thus Castro, Mao, Lenin, Mugabe and many more before and after them become the harsh dictators of the people for whom (apparently) they originally wanted to fight, kill, and even die, so that they might be free.

The answer to the question of whether they were originally fighting for 'the people' or merely for themselves is an interestingly simple one. Who has ever fought for freedom for others but NOT for themselves?! No one! The truth can be very easily revealed by their actions after the fighting is over. In most cases one could say that, consciously, they were fighting for what they believed. But, in like manner, when they have gained power they are oppressing others - 'the people' - for 'what they believe'.

And, as in the case of the United States when they gained their freedom from Britain, it was never for the benefit of ALL peoples. In America independance was not for the benefit of the Blacks, the native Americans, the Mexicans, nor even all the Whites (women weren't considered as being equal) - freedom was for those who were considered, BY THE VICTORS, as deserving freedom. As to how selfless we should judge a freedom fighter to be is to judge how selfless they are AFTER they have gained the power, and what they actually do with that power.

The phrase 'what they believe in' is actually the definitive phrase. It is not the case of what the people believe in. It is what that particular terrorist believes in. If, in the mind of the freedom fighter, the goal has become heroically deified then any opposition against the terrorist (not necessarily against the goal itself), no matter from whom, is seen as a direct attack on that goal. Thus this apparently selfless act should be seen in its true light - A TOTALLY SELFISH ACT. In many situations (not all) the freedom fighter is actually acting AGAINST the wishes of the people.

The Nationalist and Unionist Terrorists (north of Ireland 1970-)

Ultimately the definition of the freedom fighter could be: one who is willing to break the law for what they, personally, want. The problem with the freedom fight situation is that the law, and thus morals, become internalised - they, the terrorists, make the laws - thus they cannot perceive themselves as ever breaking the laws - their laws. So, to the 'republican' (nationalist) and 'loyalist' terror groups what they decide is the law. Their motivation and their methods aren't really any different from 'ordinary' organised criminal gangs - there is no real distinction between a drug baron and a terrorist. Some of the terrorists have actually become the 'hit-men' for the organised gangs. But hold on - they were always 'hit-men' - killers - so nothing really changed at all.

They are the true deciders as to what behaviour is allowed within their region of control. Punishment beatings (vicious attacks with baseball bats with protruding nails etc) are merely their way of controlling behaviour which they decide is not acceptable. To kill a British soldier, or a workman, or a passer-by, or any random, innocent victim is considered as being acceptable - for the goal is seen as being acceptable. To expect them to suddenly truly decide to down their arms for good without the achievement of gaining the ultimate power position is misinterpreting their initial goal. In both the north and the south of Ireland these freedom fighters turned on their own with as much hatred and vile loathing one could imagine, for, once within the moral 'twilight zone' of freedom fighting the gun becomes the law and getting ones own way becomes the only aim. The wishes of the majority is a meaningless concept - for the freedom fighters are outside the control of the majority.

The IRA (and even Sinn Fein) would say that the freedom fighters (they even use the term 'heroes') were fighting for the freedom from British oppression. That it was all for the benefit of the 'people'. But whenever the 'people' got in the way, no matter who they were, they were seen as being expendable and were ruthlessly removed. They were not controlled by the people - the people were controlled, and intimidated, by them.

When an Irish policeman (Det. Garda Jerry McCabe) who was guarding a cash transporter in the south of Ireland in June 1996 got in the way of an IRA robbery he was brutally and purposefully gunned down and murdered. This was an Irish citizen, working for the Irish government and on behalf of the Irish people brutally killed by members of the IRA. Also, though one can only presume this, there is a good chance that Mr McCabe himself would have wanted a peaceful re-unification of Ireland. But to the IRA he was in their way. They saw him as being totally irrelevant. This demonstrates absolutely and definitively that the IRA were fighting for THEMSELVES - not for the 'people of Ireland'. Anyone - everyone - was a suitable target.

In 1972 the IRA took a 37 year old woman, Jean McConville, a nationalist, a catholic and a mother of 10 children, from her home and tortured her and finally killed her because they didn't like the fact that she has helped a British soldier who had been fatally wounded outside her front door. They cold-heartedly dumped her body in an unknown location without any thought for her family. No person, no matter how stupid, slow or ignorant they are, could argue that the killing of that woman was going to increase the chance of a united Ireland. But it didn't matter at all to the killers - those heroic freedom fighters. The IRA, once they had decided to use force to get their own way, used force on that woman because they disagreed with her behaviour - no matter how disconnected it was with the notion of re-unification. She had merely done something which was laudable and humane but the IRA decided that that they didn't like it. And what they didn't like they punished and ultimately killed if it suited them.

The fact is that most freedom fighters terrorise their own areas - their sphere of influence - their sphere of terror, whether it be the streets of Belfast or (London) Derry, or the jungle areas of Asia or South America, or in Africa etc. The people know that they have to behave according to the rules of that terrorist group. To defy, or confront, or disagree with a member of that terrorist group, even just on a personal level, is to court torture and death. Those noble aims and heroic goals which the freedom fighters hide behind are shown for what they are - meaningless empty slogans.

The IRA killers have terrorised their own areas, in the north of Ireland - even after the Good Friday Agreement and end of the violent 'struggle'. They have killed people with whom they had a disagreement. They killed people whom they didn't like. The people are afraid to speak out and point out the killers because these freedom fighters are known for what they are - KILLERS. They killed Robert McCartney in the north of Ireland and that killing was nothing to do with the struggle for freedom - it was purely a personal matter - a disagreement.

The Taliban in Afghanistan

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan the Taliban were seen as freedom fighters - defeating and expelling the Russian invading force. But they certainly revealed their true selves as soon as they, themselves, got power. They were more oppressive to the Afghanistan people than any invading force could ever be. To disagree with, or challange their opinions, their laws, their notion of how an Afghanistan person, or any person for that matter, should behave was to invite torture and death. Being a citizen of Afghanistan not only did not protect a person from unjust attacks, it actually automatically made them a victim of oppression by the Taliban.

To say that the Taliban were fighting for the freedom of the people is so ridiculous as to be incredible. It is so obviously the case that the Taliban were utterly selfish and despotic in the extreme. Their way was THE only way. Their laws were the only laws. It wasn't the case of gaining freedom from oppression, for the benefit of the citizins - it was a case of gaining freedom in order to get ones own way - and thus oppression is the main tool.

TRUTH

So. No more talk of heroes. No more talk of selflessness. No more talk of freedom fighters. No more talk of fighting for the people. No more self deceit. No more subjective stupidity. Let truth out!

Freedom fighters (terrorists) fight for themselves. They will kill you, they will kill me, they will kill your relatives, your friends; they will kill ANYONE whom THEY do not like. This has been proven, beyond any doubt, in Ireland, in Afghanistan, in Zimbabwe, in Russia, in China, in Cuba and many more countless countries. This is the reality of human behaviour. This is the reality of freedom fighters.

So, leave talk of heros and freedom fighters to those with simple subjective notions (though there ARE the few exceptions who actually ARE freedom fighters!).

Updated: 3rd October 2009