Akhamdov is the Chechen who was granted asylum in the US and over whom Putin recentlly blasted Bush. Is this guy aligned with terrorists, either Islamic or otherwise or he a true “freedom fighter” for Chechnya?
I’m hoping for a factual answer here, so I’m posting in GQ rather than GD. I know the term “terrorist” is loaded with political overtones, but I’m hopeful we can keep the politics out of this.
I’m also hoping we can skip the debate about how to spell his name correctly (Ilais vs Ilyas), but I kow how things are in this forum, so I’m not holding my breath.
I think you need to clarify the question you’re asking.
As currently framed, the question presents a false alternative.
A terrorist is one who uses terror as a weapon to achieve his objectives. This is perhaps unduly broad; you might say that a terrorist is one who uses terror against noncombatants to achieve his objectives. But this is a quibble; the point is that to describe someone as a terrorist is to make a comment about the means he uses to achieve his objectives.
A freedom fighter is one who fights to achieve freedom, either from foreign rule or from a home-grown tyrant. To call someone a freedom fighter is to comment on his objectives, but not on the means he uses to achieve them.
It is perfectly possible to be a terrorist and a freedom fighter, by using terrorist methods in an attempt to secure freedom from foreign rule or from tyranny. History offers many examples.
I suggest you should think about whether you are concerned about Akhamdov’s objectives or the methods he (or his allies) use, and reframe your question accordingly.
That’s better. But I think we can imrove it further.
If Akhamdov has himeself been involved in perpetrating terrorist acts, then there is a simple answer to the question. I don’t know what it is, but doubtless somebody will be along shortly who does.
The question bcomes murkier if Akhmadov is associated or aligned with people who have perpetrated terrorist acts. The question then becomes (a) what is the degree of association or alignment, and (b) what degree of association or alignment to we require before we regard Akhmadov as a terrorist?
The OP clearly contemplates that simply sharing an objective (the freedom of Chechnya from Russian control) with terrorists is not enough to make Akhmadov himself a terrorist, so presumably some degree of alignment is acceptable. But what degree? If Akhmadov declines to assist the Russian authorities against terrorists, does that make him a terrorist? If he expresses the view that resort to force is justified, or that a particular example of resort to force (by someone else) is not a terrorist action when we consider that it is, or both of these views, does that make him a terrorist? If he expresses the view that terrorism is justified, while not engaging in it himself, does that make him a terrorist? If he simply declines to condemn terrorist acts, in the style of Nelson Mandela, does that make him a terrorist?
Good intentions notwithstanding, this one is headed for Great Debates, as is almost any question which seeks to categorise someone as a terrorist.
Perhaps the question should be “what has Akhemdov’s involvement in the Chechen conflict been?”
Categorising someone as a terrorist will also partly depend upon the viewpoint of the observer.
For Russians, he will probably be regarded as being, at the very least, associated with them.
In the UK we have long regarded Gerry Adams in various ways, as a terrorist in diguise would be a reasonable view of the way the British have seen him for many years.
Most in the US would see him as a politician, but his organisation, Sinn Fein, has very close links with the IRA, with some if not most participants being members of both.
Adams is regarded as one of the main leaders of the non-military wing of the IRA but his party has in the past been banned as a terrorist organisation.
Things are differant nowadays, Gerry Adams is definately seen as a politician except by those relatively few, who will never be convinced otherwise.
I’d hazard a guess and say that Akhmadov might well have a murky past to some eyes, but to others he will be treated as a representative.
In any organisation with some kind of nationalist political outlook there will be more radical elements who will use the party of create another grouping within and try to enjoy the legitimacy of the parent party.
The sub-party might well end up as a terrorist group, either hijacking or breaking away completely.
If the party is relatively small, then there’s a very good chance that most of the members are at least acquainted.
It’d be quite difficult to then draw a line between the outright terrorist, the sympathisers and those who are seeking a more peaceful solution.
