FREEDOM FIGHTER OR TERRORIST?

Is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Maybe so, but one of the two is a really stupid man! Are all uses of violence equal? Are we really to believe that we can’t tell the difference between a suicide  bomber and a man who defends his children from a kidnapper-killer?

Someone who kills people he never met, not because they ever did anything to him, but because it will generate fear and attention – that man or woman is a… YES, a terrorist!

A man who pulls out a shotgun and kills a maniac who is shooting kids in a school is a freedom fighter. Or, as they used to say in the old days, a savior.

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? Can you tell the difference?

If not, you’re just not trying. And if you can, you are clearly saying that the slogan is false! Are you really too intimidated to say that a suicide bomber blowing up a bus is evil?

“But,” some will say, “what about the man whose city is occupied by abusive soldiers? Isn’t he afreedom fighter if he fights to get free of them?” Sure! He’s a freedom fighter if he fights the actual invaders; that is, if he fights against the invading soldiers. But he’s NOT a freedom fighter if he blows up school kids. Do you really need me to spell this out for you?

And another objection: “What about soldiers? What if they’re sent illegally, blah, blah, blah?” (Usually involving intimidating levels of emotion.)  If a soldier fights other soldiers, he is not a terrorist. If he kills civilians, intending to cause fear, he is a terrorist, the same as anyone else. Wearing a uniform does not excuse terrorism.

Then, of course, is the issue of collateral damages. That is, civilians being accidentally killed during a war. And a legitimate issue it is!

Collateral damage is a horrible thing. This is precisely why war stinks! We’ll deal with necessity of war another day, but war is always ugly, and innocent people always get killed. Heck, there are always double-digit percentages of friendly-fire deaths! But, that said, to call a soldier a terrorist over this is ignorant – if he has no intent to terrorize, he is not a terrorist. He may not be acting in the best possible way, but “terrorist” has a particular meaning.

Innocent people die during wars because armies lack the ability to discriminate. That’s horrible, but no alternative exists. Every time there is a war, innocent people will die. That makes the initiation of war an immensely serious thing, but it does not make a soldier a terrorist.

If you really can’t tell the difference between terrorist or freedom fighter, you’re just not trying.