There is no generally accepted definition of terrorism in international law. In its essence, it is a system of views (ideology) of individuals, groups or organizations that accept that through threats and violence they can achieve certain goals: political, religious, nationalistic, criminal, etc. The motivation of the organizers and executors of the act is decisive, and this turns out to be a problem on which specialists and ordinary people are ready to debate until the voices are overflowing…
Let's take for example that young man whom the US security services allowed to shoot at Trump a month ago… Undoubtedly, the person committed a deliberate crime… But what prompted him to do this? Who is he? A left-wing extremist refusing to accept that after the election they will trample on his cherished democratic values? Daredevil rebelling against the system? Or a psycho – loner who doesn't like the old billionaire's haircut? Shall we label him? And maybe there is something sacrificial in his act?
It is so in many cases. Political biases mix with emotions, doubts arise… And let's also not forget that there is a difference between justice and fairness… And then how to give an objective assessment?
Let us also add that sometimes those convicted of terrorism in their home country are declared icons abroad, where they become symbols of intransigence before the totalitarian regime.
Laws, as well as history, are written by the winners, in other words - by the group that took over the reins of government at the given moment. In principle, they are obliged to meet the interests of the broad social strata, but with the current rapidly increasing class division at home and abroad, this condition is applied less and less. Therefore, events in the past should not be interpreted from the point of view of modern understandings of right and wrong. In this way, we will avoid the emergence and spread of sacrilegious ideas declaring, for example, outlaws and partisans as enemies of the state. Unfortunately, the brainless individuals professing such libertarian interpretations have become too numerous. After 1989, we cut down our life-giving roots and replaced them with foreign, harmful ideas. And many people are to blame for what happened: teachers and professors, journalists, politicians… And the family too, as far as it exists.
When analyzing an event, we need to impartially determine its importance for society, especially for the majority of its members. We also need to know the specific conditions under which the act was carried out. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to use evaluations such as "good" and "bad" about historical events. What is important is whether they correspond to national interests. Why not the state ones? Because, as indicated above, they are too flexible and fast-changing and do not always meet people's expectations and needs. That is why we are Bulgarians, not Brusselsoids. Our parents have built a strong and prosperous republic with a fair government for the working people. And their fathers and mothers, like many generations before them, sacrificed their lives for the Orthodox faith and the freedom of the homeland. This is our place. And we must know what we are.
One of the forms of terror is political – when ideological opponents are hunted down and killed. Such dark examples in our past are the Nineteenth June coup in 1923, the events of 1925, the atrocities of the Macedonian gangs. Thousands were brutally murdered without trial and sentence - on the streets and in the basements of the police stations, in the sunken barges in Lom, on the rocks in the Iskar Gorge.
Repression increased again after the country joined the Hitlerite bloc during World War II.
Only the seizure of power by the Patriotic Front in the fall of 1944 put an end to the civil war in our country. And we must remember that uprisings, anti-fascist resistance and the judgment of the enemies of the people are not events that happened without good reasons. It was not out of great pleasure that our ancestors took the forest, leaving home and family.
The peasant movement in the fifties of the last century could also be classified as a manifestation of terrorist activity. Its members carry out acts of sabotage that are prepared and financed by the US, Great Britain and the Vatican. Then the spirits gradually calm down. Power is strong. Class division is disappearing. The people's republic builds, learns, grows rich. Ordinary people are proud of the fruits of their labor. What should they be dissatisfied with?
But NATO continues to raise tensions from the outside. The Nippers are perpetrating provocations along our borders. They launch intelligence probes. Toys loaded with explosives are left on the streets of Bulgarian cities. They are organizing attacks against our representations abroad. All this is a form of international terrorism – actions directed against the resistance of the foreign country by attracting contractors from the local opposition or criminal circles.
In 1984 – In 1987, pro-Turkish groups organized sabotage and assassinations in the country. More than 45 people were killed. After the coup in 1989, the official version was accepted that the Bulgarian Mohammedans protested in this way against the Revival process. In fact, everything was prepared much earlier by Ankara's secret services. It was planned that parts of southern and northern Bulgaria would declare their autonomy under the crescent flag.
According to a similar scenario, Kosovo was separated from Serbia a little later.
With the advent of globalization, terrorism has become an efficient tool in international relations. But we will talk about that later.