Accordingto Yassir Arafat, &quotIt should be the right of the people who liveunder colonial rule to oppose their subjugation, with force ifnecessary. People who struggle to liberate themselves from oppressionhave the right to use all methods at their disposal (Fanon 35).&quotI support the statement because freedom fighters are opposinginvaders who are determined to exploit their resources and labor forthe purpose of their benefits. Colonists often use dictatorship ruleas the locals or the colonized persons are deemed inferior to theirmasters. It is true that diplomatic approach can help resolveconfrontation between colonists and the colonized persons, but theaggressors can obstruct justice and peace talks aimed at resolvingthe standoff by detaining the leaders of the colonized parties (Fanon37). Besides, it can be quite challenging to acquire internationalsupport towards putting pressure on colonists. The makes itindispensable for the freedom fighters to use force if the aggressorsare not ready to resolve issues using diplomatic channels. Forexample, many developed nations from Europe such as Britain, Franceand Germany conquered the colonized Africa because they had superiorweapons and technology. Unfortunately, the Africans lacked an avenuethey could use present their grievances. This means that they couldonly achieve change using crude means such as creating an insurgencytowards the offenders. The resistance yielded results because thecolonists could listen to the grievances of the offended persons(Fanon 41). On many cases, colonists commit atrocities, but they makesure to hide the truth from the world. This makes it essential forthe oppressed people to use every method to overcome oppression,including violence. However, when possible, the oppressed peopleshould attempt to resolve disputes using non-violent means ascountries that resist colonists using violence rarely stops fightingeven after the aggressors have been deposed.

Defianceinvolving violence is often categorized as terrorism since theassailants commit murder and other forms of sabotages intended toscare the attackers. Colonists often classify the fighters asterrorists and persons worth facing extreme punishment because oftheir impunity. However, a UN representative asserted, &quotThedifference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in thereason for which each fights. For whoever stands by a just cause andfights for the freedom and liberation if his land from the invaders,the settlers, and the colonialists cannot possibly be called aterrorist (Mideastweb 1).&quot The premise is true because thefreedom fighters fight because they want to reclaim the justice thathas been taken away by people who are taking advantage of theirweaknesses. On the other hand, terrorists’ motive is often based onfundamentalism such as religion and selfish desires that are harmfulto others. While a freedom fighter can use ruthless and cold bloodtactics similar to the strategies the terrorists use, revolutionistscannot be described as terrorists because they are demanding foruniversal rights (Best and Nocella 47). A revolutionary war is basedon utilitarian ethics defined by Emanuel Kant as an action thatmotivated by a maxim that one could choose universally. On the otherhand, terrorism actions are motivated by personal gain andselfishness. As a result, revolutionaries are different fromterrorists because they are fighting for a just reason. In manycases, the fighting erupts from a third party using its power toexploit them.


Fanon,Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, Algeria. 2007. Print.

Best,Steven and Nocella, Anthony J. TerroristsOr Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals.Lantern Books. 2004. Print.

&quotYasserArafat – Speech at the UN, November 13, 1974.&quotMideastweb.N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015 &lthttp://mideastweb.org/Arafat_at_un.htm&gt