Printable View
Title says it all.
I was giving it some thought and scribbling some thoughts about this during a lecture a few days ago.
My thoughts were generally that "Freedom Fighting" was something of a strategy, or a wider goal, while "Terrorism" was a tactic. But terrorism isn't exactly my lane, so I would like to ask the same question to the wider community here at SWC.
Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
What are the differences?
- Mac
Short answer is 'yes,' no difference. It only depends on where you're standing.
- American 18th century colonists: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Israeli Zionists (prior to statehood): freedom fighters and terrorists
- PLO: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Taliban: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Haqqani: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Chechens: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Black Panthers: freedom fighters and terrorists
- IRA: freedom fighters and terrorists
- FLN: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Vietminh: freedom fighters and terrorists
- John Brown: freedom fighter and terrorist
You could obviously go on forever with this list (Bolsheviks, Jacobins, Boko Haram, etc etc etc). Only variable is if you're perspective is from the state or the oppressed population.
Neither are really a 'strategy' per se, only a tactic or a Way. Labels mean nothing...or everything. It just depends on which narrative you're trying to get support for (i.e. the coalition forces in Afghanistan, the Russians in the North Caucasus, the Quetta Shura Taliban, etc). We label terrorism as criminal (except when there's an 'Authorized Use of Military Force' legislation in place, then its war goddamit!) because we're the state so any and all action threatening our monopoly on the use of force is automatically illegal, whether justified or not. All countries are the same. But then it gets back to the Social Contract; populations have a right to rebel if the state doesn't hold up their end of the bargain.
To get a good philosophical baseline to start understanding that question, read Camus' "The Rebel." Why does man rebel? To what end? What means justify those ends and why? It explains a lot without the political baggage we assign to the terminology.
My 2 cents.
Freedom fighting implies an objective or goal, not a strategy. Terrorism as you pointed out is a tactic. Freedom fighters and dictators can employ terrorism as a tactic to pursue goals, so it is an equal opportunity tactic.Quote:
My thoughts were generally that "Freedom Fighting" was something of a strategy, or a wider goal, while "Terrorism" was a tactic. But terrorism isn't exactly my lane, so I would like to ask the same question to the wider community here at SWC.
Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
What are the differences?
The FBI definition of terrorism is almost comical, since its scope is much greater than most would assume is terrorism. Almost any insurgent, state actor, that has waging a conflict with the U.S. could be classified a terrorist.
More appropriate in my view from the CIA since it focuses on non-combatant targets. I don't think an attack by irregulars against military targets is terrorism, but rather an irregular attack. When they attack civilians that is another matter.Quote:
The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The FBI further classifies terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization.
Freedom fighter is another over used term to gain legitimacy, but as we all know not every group that claims to be freedom fighter has anything resembling freedom as its goal, unless they mean freedom to pursue their goals.Quote:
A: The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
•The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
•The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
•The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
Mac asked:Often we are searching, seeking clarity as we are told that is needed to think, let alone argue with others. I think our brains however complex seek simplicity and a great deal of modernity instructs us to think so.Quote:
Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
Secondly, enemies and friends as history shows are not constant.
Afghanistan is a superb example. Following the Soviet invasion the USA allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan support the "Muj"; the Soviets exit, US support ends; Pakistan creates and supports the Taliban, after 9/11 the US wages war on the Taliban and Pakistan is a friend or enemy to the Taliban and the USA.
Yes, which is why terrorism is almost exclusively about branding.Quote:
Originally Posted by McArthur
Some freedom fighters may also be terrorists, but some terrorists are not freedom fighters.
In other words: while most national liberation movements resort to "terrorism" (i.e. the pursuit of political gain through violent intimidation) as a means towards their goal, there are many terrorist movements who do not seek freedom (other than the "freedom" to do as they like).
For example, were Nazi SA men, during the 1920s-30s, "freedom fighters"? Were the Al-Qaeda hijackers, who crashed into TWC? Also, were PLO guerrilas (after showing the world that a free and independant state sits lower on their priority list than blowing up a bus full of Israeli civilians)?
None of it's that simple. Personally I think there's a breakover point where a terrorist group simply becomes a terror group, leaving any claim to being anyone's freedom fighter behind. Japan's Red Army, the old RAF, Italian Red Brigades, and some of the more radical factions of the IRA and UDF would clearly fall into this category. There's a clear cycle of violence (IMO) that can be used to mark the transition point.
Mac,
A very current example of your question is the US decision to de-certify MEK as a terrorist group:Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/zahir-j...unter-with-mekQuote:
It was the MEK’s involvement in terror including the killing of six Americans in the 1970s that prompted President Bill Clinton to designate the group a foreign terrorist organization in 1992.
Violence has always been a part of the MEK. The group was founded in 1965 as an armed opposition to the Shah of Iran. After the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it assassinated Iran’s first president and prime minister and later assisted Saddam Hussein in crushing the Kurdish uprising. In 2001 the MEK claimed that it renounced violence but its record showed otherwise. According to a report published by Human Rights Watch in May 2005, “The former (MEK) members reported abuses ranging from detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization, to lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members.”
Steve, I'm not so sure; I think you're talking about the difference between political terrorism and pure Nietzschean nihilism (maybe Russian anarchism?). I view terrorism as only a tactic towards a political end. I can't see how any of the orgs you listed still don't fall into the category of both terrorist *and* freedom fighter. Both are still working towards a political end state defined by a perception of righting a political wrong. Isn't any cycle of violence therefore irrelevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
And if we're talking about nihilism versus terrorism that's a whole other philosophical discussion; interesting, but with a political differentiation outside to the OP's initial question.
I think the transition point takes place when a group's political goals become totally irrelevant to any current situation. The end state tends to shift from reasonably concrete things to very fuzzy goals that cannot be achieved. At that point, the violence becomes an end in itself. Saying that the cycle of violence is irrelevant misses the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotkinjs1
Terrorism can certainly be a tactic...I agree with that. But with relation to the OP's question, what happens when the only man who thinks the terrorist is a freedom fighter is the terrorist himself?
To many Nazis - yes. That's the point; opinions differ according to point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by shlomz
This whole topic gets a lot clearer if we look at the core of the interest: Is one man's illegitimately violent man doing legitimate violence in the opinion of another man?
The answer is simply yes.
Terrorism is not particularly effective in pursuit of one's objective, so all powers which have a wide-ranging repertoire that's not being suppressed by superior opposition will shun terrorism in favour of better methods.
Terrorism is proclaimed to be a "dirty" method in violent conflict, and it's being proclaimed so by those who have better means or otherwise no need for terrorism.
In the end, it's all about people being willing to pursue a political objective with violence, but lacking the ability to do so on a more sophisticated level (say, manoeuvring a tank brigade).
Roger; I understand what you're saying but we're not talking about political terrorism at that point anymore. I suppose that's your point too. Once a terrorist group reaches that point (I find that a highly hypothetical argument; I still can't see any politically-motivated group following that route, even the groups you mentioned in the first post), they're not political terrorists or freedom fighters. They're nihilists in the purest sense of the word; fighting simply to fight, to overthrow 'normalcy.' If a person/group starts out at that point, with no reason for fighting other than for the sake of violence, I'd imagine it'd be a simple law-enforcement affair since there are no underlying and valid political issues in the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
This brings us back to the cyclical nature of the argument itself - freedom fighter/terrorist, and the unnecessary labeling to satisfy the state. Terrorists will always be extra-legal no matter the cause. It's a tactic, yes, but only really necessary when the insurgent is in Phase I and II of Mao's revolutionary war. Since most insurgencies never get past that stage, we never see the fruition or utility of the tactic.
Terrorists who fight governments we dislike are called "freedom fighters". Terrorists who fight governments we like are called "terrorists". Other governments and groups apply the same distinction, and since different folks like different things, almost anyone out there who uses violence will be called a terrorist by someone and a freedom fighter by someone else.
Whether or not anyone in the picture, those who fight governments or the governments they fight, has any concern for anyone's "freedom" in the literal sense is generally irrelevant to the nomenclature.
More accurately they are labeled as useful.Quote:
Terrorists who fight governments we dislike are called "freedom fighters".
Politics require that those we consider useful must be labeled as noble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Only when we openly admit to supporting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
I don't think so. Not because I (obviously) disagree with their goals, but because I think that the term "freedom fighters" is usually reserved to portray individuals who try to gain independence from a foreign nation. That way, the Taliban weren't "freedom fighters" until the US invasion of Afghanistan, even though they were using terrorism a long time before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Come on,even Nazis believed to fight for freedom. Freedom from communists, freedom from Jews, freedom from Treaty of Versailles...Quote:
Originally Posted by shlomz
Really, EVERYBODY exploits the motive of the fight for freedom.
The term is routinely applied to (or claimed by) those who rebel against governments or systems they believe to be dictatorial or just plain distasteful. Freedom from communist dictatorship, freedom from capitalist hegemony, freedom from practically anything you don't like...Quote:
Originally Posted by shlomz
Amusing little factoid:
The German translation of "freedom fighter" is Freiheitskämpfer, and unlike the English version Freiheitskämpfer is almost exclusively used on people who do/did not fight violently.
It's more often used to describe the civil rights movement people than to describe guerrillas.
I've never seen those two agency distinctions paired together like that before. I definitely prefer the apparent clarity of the CIA definition. It remains in the eye of the beholder, however, when the discussion morphs from defining an act, to justifying it. Then it gets all sorts of silly string and stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
I'm in the process of putting together my argument. I'm also submitting it as part of my degree, but when it's an interesting topic like this I like to throw it out to various internet forums for a bit of discussion.
This is a quote from Binyamin Netanyahu's book, "Terrorism: How the West Can Win". I thought it was appropriate.
- MacQuote:
The idea that one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter’ cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don’t blow up buses containing non-combatants; terrorist murders do. Freedom fighters don’t set out to capture and slaughter schoolchildren; terrorist murders do… it is a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word ‘freedom’ to be associated with acts of terrorists.
I wonder whether Mr Netanyahu would have considered the Irgun or the Stern Gang to be "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"... I seem to recall them blowing up non-combatants on a number of occasions.
The question asked on this thread was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
I assume by your question you suspect - in the case of Netanyahu - he may see it that way.
Yeah...the Independence narrative gets sketchy at times, but Jews did target a multi-use facility (King David Hotel) that contained a variety of civilians as well as military HQs. That the Irgun gave a warning of the pending bomb is immaterial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Jewish political leadership at that time did step back--publicly--from the attack, but the record is full of gray areas. The wiki entry on the bombing I've read before is interesting as it notes that at the 60th anniversary, a commemorative plaque of sorts was put up (with Netanyahu in attendance) that continued to try to put the blame on casualties with the British.
The various "paramilitary" groups continued to use the full range of terrorist TTPs (bombing, arson, assassination) to advance their agenda, and they meet the definition for sure. I suppose Netanyahu would cede the notion that yes, they were terrorists, but he would muddy the definition by harping on the justification...attempting to blur the line in the process. In fact, I can recall him quoted as such before.
Yes, exactly. It's often overlooked that if we're talking about "one man's" terrorist and "another man"s" freedom fighter we're talking about perceptions: what that one man perceives as a terrorist may be perceived by another as a freedom fighter. Whether those perceptions are objectively accurate or subjectively justifiable is of course a question open to debate, but it's a different question.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Any given evaluation of whether ends justify means is often highly dependent on the extent to which the person doing the evaluating identifies with or approves of the ends under discussion.
Yes, I suspect that the assessment of who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter used by Mr Netanyahu - one man - may be quite opposite from that adopted by, say, Khaled Mashaal - another man. I'm not making any effort to assess whose definition is right or wrong or better or worse, just pointing out that "one man" and "another" may in fact assess that equation quite differently. Whether either assessment is objectively accurate or subjectively justifiable is another question altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Fuchs,
Do you have a source for your "Freiheitskmpfer" thing? I've put together 99% of my argument and am about to post it here, and for some reason I enjoyed that little factoid, and I'd like to slip it into my introduction :D
- Mac
Gentleman, this is the piece I've just finished putting together. Still got a bit of editing and work to do, but it's 11pm and I've got the flu :o
My sources are in brackets.
I'm actually quite uncomfortable about how this turned out. I originally had a very rough and ready document which amounted to about 4,000 words, but I'm required to cut it down to 1,500 for this piece. I'm not sure I did the right thing in cutting out a lot of my case study (Chechnya) and some side points, because what I'm left with is pretty much just a re-hash of Ganor and Hughes' work, and that bothers me.
Also, Fuchs, I included your little factoid, because I really liked it.
As I said when I started this thread, I initially thought the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting was simply tactic vs strategy. This piece reflects that, but it's now being called means vs ends.
I also decided that the whole terrorism vs freedom fighting thing was bollocks, and that they were apples and oranges. It should realistically be Terrorism vs Guerilla Warfare, both of which can take place under the wider umbrella of national liberation.
Feel free to tear me to shreds (Or at least give it a try)
- Mac
(It's posted below, there is a character limit per post in this forum)
- MacQuote:
Terrorism, Guerilla Warfare & Freedom Fighting
An issue that has plagued the study of counter-terrorism for decades has been the cliché comparison “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. The comparison suggests that the difference between the two groups is the eye of the beholder.
There are certainly elements of perspective that play into the debate. The words “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” are after all only words, and their meanings are still a matter of perspective and are reasonably difficult to fully capture. Indeed, the German term for freedom fighter, “Freiheitskämpfer” has a different meaning in the German language than it does in English.
Despite the inherent ambiguity in defining terrorism, especially when compared to freedom fighting, there is a strong argument that the difference can be quantified, and that there are in fact very real differences between the two groups. Counter-terror experts have had some degree of success in defining both terrorism and freedom fighting, and even the original cliché can be dissected and criticized.
There is no shortage of reasons why terrorism requires an internationally recognized definition of terrorism. In the modern world, terrorism is a globalized issue, and as such it must be dealt with on an international scale. If we are to develop and implement an international strategy, there must be agreement on what we are dealing with – a definition of terrorism. Until there is an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, operational results will be far and few between (Ganor).
Developing a definition of terrorism will assist in multiple phases of dealing with terrorism. The first phase involved defining terrorism for the purposes of legislation and punishment. Legislation requires a definition to distinguish terrorism from ordinary crime. A definition is necessary for legislation designed to curb terrorism and assistance to terrorism, as well as setting sentences for terrorists or for confiscating their financial resources and supplies. The second phase involves international cooperation, where an internationally accepted definition of terrorism is required to ensure effective cooperation between states, as well as discouraging links between states and terrorist organizations. The third phase involves public relations and terrorism, where universal definitions of terrorism can not only undermine indigenous support for the terrorist organization, but also legitimizes offensive action taken against terrorists. Importantly, an internationally accepted definition of terrorism also creates a universal distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists, and allows for legitimate action taken by freedom fighters or guerillas in the name of national liberation. (Ganor)
The use of the “terrorist” label is often applied as most suitable for meeting an individual or group’s political purposes, or for meeting individual’s personal preconceptions on the matter (Hughes). States can deny the political motivation of rebellious groups through the use of criminalizing terms such as “gangs”, “thugs” and “terrorists”, all of which undermines legitimate resistance. The leader of the communist resistance to the British in Malaya stated:
When we worked with the British during the Japanese occupation and killed people—essentially in Britain’s interests—we were neither bandits nor terrorists. Indeed, we were applauded, praised and given awards. Thus, you only became a terrorist when you killed against their interests.” (Chin Peng)
On a more personal level, there have been recent psychological studies that support the idea that terrorism is mostly cognitive in nature. Although political violence is a very real occurrence, terrorism itself as a concept is a social construction that occurs in the general population. When people apply labels, they are applying their own personal perceptions of those who partake in terrorism (Montiel). It was found that the “Terrorist” label implies an individual who is motivated by revenge and hatred, targets the innocent, refuses political negotiations and is considered the “evil villain”. (Kennedy). On the other hand, the “Freedom Fighter” label implies a person who stands passionately committed to national liberation; hits legitimate military targets only, and is often viewed as a hero or a martyr. (Harre)
The problem with states using the definition of terrorism in a highly selective and politicized manner is that it undermines the credibility of the term “terrorist” (Hughes). This is why modern academic definitions of terrorism tend to analyze the means of violence, rather than the justifications for, as the factor in deciding whether or not the act is illegitimate. In a similar vein, modern academics agree that the immediate target of a terror attack is secondary, and is only a vehicle for communicating a threat to a primary target elsewhere.
There have been multiple attempts by individuals, organisations and states to justify the means in terms of the end (Waltzer). The Arab League has previously argued that violent conflict in the name of “liberation and self-determination” cannot be terrorism, but violent conflict against existing regimes or monarchies will be considered criminal assaults. Syria has made equally ambiguous and insincere statements – it will not assist terrorist organisations, but openly supports “national liberation movements”. (Ganor) These attempts to justify the means in terms of the end emphasize not only the idea that states use the term “terrorist” as a political tool, but also the cliché that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, and that terrorism hinges on the perspective and motivations of the one doing the defining. However, terrorism cannot be allowed to be a means towards national liberation. When a national liberation group chooses terrorism as it’s means, the aim of their struggle can no longer be used to justify the use of terrorism. (Ganor) (Netanyahu)
It will be necessary to accept that the world is not entirely black and white. Although terrorism and freedom fighting are different things, a national liberation organisation can also participate in terrorism, and the concepts of terrorism and freedom fighting are not mutually contradictory. There will be cases where an organisation or movement will contain elements of both, and there is a certain area of uncertainty. So far, this uncertainty has not been properly addressed. Most definitions of terrorism fail to properly capture the dynamic nature of terrorism as an instrument and tool within the wider context of armed conflict and resistance. (Hughes)
The inability for the international community to agree upon a definition of terrorism is posing a serious issue. One popular definition proposed by Boaz Ganor states “terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims”. This definition is based on three principle elements. The first is the essence of the action. Under Ganor’s definition, if the action does not involve violence or the threat of violence, it cannot be defined as terrorism. The second element is the requirement for the goal of the action to be political in nature. In the absence of a political aim, the action cannot be defined as terrorism. The third element is the targeting of civilians, emphasizing the deliberate rather than accidental targeting of civilians. This is what distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violent conflict.
There are many different methods used by freedom fighters to accomplish their goals, with terrorism only being one of those methods. Under the wider category of non-conventional conflict, guerilla warfare is the legitimate counterpart of terrorism. I would suggest that as national liberation/freedom is an end rather than a means, that comparing terrorism to freedom fighting is a poor comparison to be making. The real comparison should be between terrorism and guerilla warfare – both means utilized by freedom fighters in pursuit of their goals. Guerilla warfare is described as “a prolonged war of attrition, with progressively increasing violence, blurred limits, a fluid line of contact, emphasizing the human factor. In the course of war, guerilla combatants become regular military forces until victory is attained and one side is defeated” (Harkabi). The definition by Laqueur focuses on the asymmetric nature of the conflict; “Guerilla warfare is a form of warfare by which the strategically weaker side assumes the tactical offensive in selected forms, times and places. Guerilla warfare is the weapon of the weak”. Even though terrorism and guerilla warfare are often strongly intermingled, their methods are distinctly different. Guerillas are noted to have the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict, usually with inferior numbers, ad-hoc weaponry and fewer strategic capabilities. However, they can and often do fight according to the laws of armed conflict, taking and exchanging prisoners, as well as respecting the rights of non-combatants. On the other side, terrorists place no limits on the means used, and tend to employ widespread assassination and the use of terror tactics upon the indigenous population. (Schmid, Jongman & Stohl)
The whole idea of comparing a tactic to an objective still seems a bit to me like... apples and oranges doesn't quite cover it. Apples and baseballs, perhaps.
I find it interesting, though in no way surprising, that states often adopt definitions of terrorism that exclude state terrorism. The eye of the beholder is a potent device.
I hope I made it clear that this is exactly the stance I am trying to take...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
I am suggesting the national liberation is an objective, and both guerilla warfare and terrorism are methods of achieving that objective.
- Mac
... and are most often branches of the same tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by McArthur
As German I object your statement. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
People like Andreas Hofer were "Freiheitskaempfer" and fought violently :-)
He certainly looks like a cross between a "typical" Lederhose-clad German and a Taliban. As a matter of fact he was very religous and not too tolerant for Liberal ideas and other beliefs. But this is a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel
From a military view it is interesting that the militas were able to be highly effective in the small war as well as able to hold their own in pitched defensive battles. Clausewitz has some interestings things to say in his chapter about the peoples war and IIRC noted that this was something very rare. Of course an important factor was terrain, which in this case aided greatly the defender and high marksmanship of a good deal of the "Shooters".
This is not merely a matter of point of view. By what standards radical left wing European terrorists from the 70s (the Italian PAC for instance) could be considered "freedom fighters"? When a group executes terrorist actions against an open, free society, it is a totally different matter from another group employing the same tactics to break free from an oppresive dictatorship.
"terrorist" is absolutely a loaded label designed to render both the actor and the action as illegitimate. Sometimes it is actually the best label. Often it is not.
Are most "freedom fighters"? Many certainly are. Many fight for revenge, but that is OK too, and is the primary rationale behind the US-led response to 9/11.
I think it is also important to distinguish the difference between "why men fight" and "why conflicts occur." An organization with a primary purpose of freedom or revenge will always attract a large number who are simply young and seeking adventure, or are followers, or are sadists, or just need a check, etc, etc.
On Maslow's hierarchy, why men fight is driven more by the factors at the base of the pyramid, but why populace-based conflicts occur is driven more by the factors at the top. Both fuse in the middle, so there is no clean distinction.
But our rule of law approach and love of slapping broad labels of "terrorist" or "terrorism" onto organizations and individuals may well facilitate targeting, but it is a huge obstacle to actually working to resolve the drivers of why such organizations came to exist, and why they endure despite the best of our efforts to "CT" them into submission. Bribing populaces with Development is equally ineffective; as are governance programs that focus on giving others the leaders and forms of government that we deem are the "best guards for their future security."
Labels only help when they are smart to begin with and when they are never taken too literally or applied too permanently. Unfortunately, when it comes to terrorism labels, we break all three of those rules.
Always worth looking at whether individuals or groups are fighting to stop their government (or someone else) from doing something to them or to impose something they prefer - usually themselves in power - on the government.
I've never bought the idea that people fight government, as insurgents or as terrorists, because the government has failed to deliver services or economic progress, especially in places where expectations of government are very low to start with. People fight because they are scared and/or angry, because government is messing with them, or because they want to take over and advance their own goals and ambitions. Those in the latter category often exploit those in the former category, and the wise counterinsurgent will aim to disaggregate the two by addressing the cause of the fear and anger that drive the footsoldier. That won't convert those who merely want to impose themselves and their ideology, but it will isolate them.