'A for America'

"Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot..."

I acknowledge 'terrorism' to be a valid means of achieving freedom (and freedom only). A starter-level reason, but a valid reason none-the-less.

Freedom is divine. Like every bit of divinity, it can be achieved in innumerable ways. Divinity being a word that commands more 'meaning' than 'definition', the means vary just as significantly as the interpretations of the word. Divinity to a clergy is absolute submission to a supernatural beyond all questions, whereas it is the solution of an equation to the scientist. Some find divinity in the delights of an orgasm, while others find it in the labor of child-birth.

The question is not of choosing where to draw the line. Rather, it is of accepting that no such line can be drawn. Similar is the case with freedom.

The fact that freedom and terrorism are two of the world's most ambiguous concepts only highlights the dilemma facing us. We know it quite well by now that it is almost impossible to do the right thing, at the right time, and for the right reason. A compromised version of it could be, is it ok to do the right things for the wrong reasons (ex, "disarm Iraq and liberate its people" = right thing, "loot all their oil" = wrong reason; "educate the cherokee" = right thing, "uproot the Indian in them" = wrong reason), or the other way round?

I stand up for the second. It is excusable to do the wrong things for the right reason. In fact, this is at the core of the most sweeping dreams of utopia. From Robin Hood to 'V' in 'V for Vendetta', from walking a thousand nights to watch the sun rise to climbing up miles to view the paramount, men are always at their best when they do the wrong things for the right reason. There lies ecstasy, there lies life.

Terror is a bi-directional weapon. It is behind every occupation there was, it is behind every occupation that was ever removed. Terror is unhealthy for the soul and needs to be removed at the earliest, but not by any given means. Unilateral attempts to remove terror end up in helpless replication of it only. Of all the wrongs and rights, application of terror is perhaps the only anomaly that cannot be justified by any means. Terror dies away only when both parties come out with their true intensions, allowing terror to neutralize terror by way of battles.

Is the true psyche of terror (or freedom) ever known? Is the battle ever won? Is the shrowd ever lifted? Do rebel hearts ever bleed with doubt? Smart generals fight conclusively, not pre-emptively. Only terrorists do. Legal or not. Pious or not.

We are all the while struggling to find a balance between these abstracts. Is there anything absolute amonst all these? Is there anything that we can consider as the least common denominator? Some suggest oppression. Some say security. Some say freedom of speech. The revolution of 'V' is unique and just in the sense that it leaves the door open to individual revelation.

Revolution without revelation moves masses, but revolution with one moves generations. The former is moved by men. The latter by masks and ideas.