Battle of Algiers

Topic 1
By Seth DMello

For: Mr. Escobedo

Due: Friday, January 29th, 2016

The film does not romanticize terrorists, demonize the French, or give value to violence in the name of some
sort of peoples revolution; instead the director goes at once deeper and higher, examining each sides
motives and contradictions. In light of this statement argue whether the Algerian members of the FLN are
justified in using terrorism as a means for liberation from the French. Alternatively, argue whether the French
army has a moral justification in torturing Algerian suspects in order to preserve French rule.

The film Battle of Algiers is said to allow the viewer to decide

whether or not they think that the actions of the FLN are justified. Even
though the films main character was the same person that took action
in the rebellion, the film does not give a direct verdict either way, or
show too much bias to either side. It does show however how the
patriots of country tried to resolve the issue at hand, and how the
French reacted to this uprising. In my opinion, the slaughter of innocent
civilians in any situation is never justified. The issue in Algeria is not
straightforward because it was a battle for independence in which
many major countries go through/have gone through. There were
different ways at that time which the FLN could have explored as an
alternative terrorism, and that is why their actions are not justifiable.
Algeria became a colony of France in the nineteenth century as
European countries started to colonize different regions of Africa. The
indigenous people that were there before French occupation were
immediately treated as lesser than the new French colonists. The

natives were oppressed from the get go and they were not given many
of the rights that they had prior to French Occupation. This is a
problem because from this time there was division and the desire for
the people of Algeria to be liberated. The film shows some of the
methods used by the FLN to accomplish this, and none of them were
diplomatic or justifiable.
There are other methods to gain independence for a country that
is occupied by another country. The British for example, once occupied
India; with many peaceful movements with minimal civilian fatalities,
India won their independence in 1947. There were many contributing
factors to Indias independence but mainly they won it through
peaceful interactions between the two sides leaders and peaceful
protests. To solve a problem between two sides it is paramount that
there be dialogue between the two sides instead of pointless killings.
Even though the FLN achieved their goal in the end of liberating
Algeria from France, it is estimated that more than a million lives were
lost achieving this goal.
Since there were many other alternative methods to liberate
Algeria, terrorism was more justifiable than war as it resulted in fewer
deaths than a full out war would be like today in Syria. Algerians had to
make a few adjustments, but it was not a world scale disaster with
many refugees spreading out across the world like modern day Syria.

With the French being so accustomed to being the authorities in

Algeria, the sting of terrorism and the deaths of innocent helpless
civilians hurt more than that of soldiers dying in war. The message that
Algeria and the FLN wanted France out immediately was received loud
and clear by all who witnessed the terrorists acts of violence. The
issue of Algeria was also not broadcasted on a national level like
Syrias problems are. The world took up Frances side in this war as a
result of a lack of information on the situation and since France was a
modern and trustworthy Western Civilization, however when the
pointless killings did not cease, Charles de Gaulle was forced to return
Algeria its sovereignty. This part was not shown in the film, but the
knowledge of this might sway ones view on the terrorism that took
place, as it accomplished its goal.
One of the important quotes in the movie was that of the French
General summarizing their tough decision that they had to make. "Is
France to remain in Algeria? the French colonel in charge asks them in
return. "If your answer is still yes, you must accept all the necessary
consequences. France knew there was terrorism going on and was
going to continue until they eradicated the FLN, but by doing this, they
accepted the civilian deaths. Terrorism is a means of striking fear
though violence, and in this way accepting the known consequences
were a calculated risk taken by the French as they thought they could
stop the FLN. The FLN had to use the General Algerian Population as a

last resort, to start a general strike to go along with the terrorism to

fully take control of the situation. With this you can say that the
terrorism failed and the strike took over in helping them achieve their
goal.
The war on terror that we have today is a perfect example of how
terrorism has evolved since the crisis in Algeria. The Western world
has become afraid and suspicious of the Middle Eastern World, and as
a result there is a new way to terrorize the innocent using the same
fundamentals we saw in Algeria. ISIS and other terrorist groups are
trying to justify their terrorism by saying that it is as a result of the
Western Civilization invading their country. As a result we have a
terrorism war where each side attacks the other, and we have innocent
civilians being killed just like what happened in Algeria. The difference
here though, is that there is no clear-cut solution to solve this problem,
just like the French did, by leaving the occupied country. We must see
that violence breeds violence, and the more we do to each other the
less it becomes about standing for a cause and the more it becomes
inflicting wounds on the other side. We must not let emotions of
retribution take hold of our actions; we must stand for a cause like
Algeria did instead of getting even, for the enemys previous
transgressions. Acts of War and Terrorism are always unjustifiable when
innocents are killed, however they are even more heinous and just
plain stupid when you cannot explain the reasons for your actions.

The FLNs terrorism to innocent French and Algerian civilians was

for a cause, yet still not justified. Terrorism since this dispute has
evolved to a level in which every civilian in the Western World should
be concerned about. Innocents on both sides have been killed and
some for no justifiable reason. Humans need to put an end to terrorism
that inflicts physical harm on our brothers and sisters. We need to stop
this pointless violence and start resolving our issues in a more civilized
manor that we, who were created with a higher intellect, should always
be looking to do first before inflicting wounds on our adversaries. The
innocent deaths of civilians only brings across the point that you have
no ethics and cannot be trusted even when an agreement is reached.
Terrorism is and always has been an unjustifiable way of resolving
issues; we must end terrorism in the world today, so that we can make
it a better world for tomorrow.

MAIN SOURCES
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/002/film/reviews/0
005.html
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/how-terrorismis-wrong-morality-and-political-violence/402933.article

https://www.opendemocracy.net/najtaylor/practice-of-harmin-battle-of-algiers