The claim a terrorist is another person's freedom fighter is unfounded and ignorant. Freedom fighters fight for democracy and justice whereas a terrorist fights for fear, greed, power etc. "there exist precise and settled criteria that are readily available to distinguish one from the other"
. Not only that but the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the UN both describe what a freedom fighter is and what a terrorist is. First and foremost anyone who wishes to be a freedom fighter CAN NOT attack a civilian population or individual civilians. With these clear set definitions, more can be found from the same websites and countless others, a terrorist is not another countries freedom fighter if that group goes against international law.
In this case there must be a clear policy directed toward the terrorists and it must be implemented. Any group that commits “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" [Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)] is defined as a terrorist and action should and must be taken. . A terrorist is clearly an enemy of the free world and must be dealt with as such. Policies of harboring terrorists is a stance that the United States can never take as terrorism undermines the goals and liberties of democracy. When it comes to freedom fighters, they should be allowed to exist and continue in there struggle and possibly even with the aid of the United States. Freedom fighters generally fight for the good of the people against the evil of the state, usually some form of communism, facism, dictatorship etc. These are governments that are generally agreed are a bad thing and so it would be in the best interest of the United States to ally with the freedom fighters.
As a summation I would say that a freedom fighter can be but is not always another person's terrorist. Furthermore, action taken against terrorists should be swift and fierce and action taken against freedom fighters should be to help them in their struggle against tyranny.
2 comments:
You seem to paint a rosy picture of freedom fighters but what if they are Maoist guerillas bent on imposing a Communist state or Islamists? Does that make them different than freedom fighters or terrorists? Even if they only target the military?
Can freedom be imposed through military force or "fighting" ? I believe what you are saying is based on one perspective. Do people in Iraq view the US now as fighting for their freedom or as occupying their nation? Do terrorist view themselves as terrorists or are they convinced they are fighting for freedom (perhaps from US influence) themselves?
Post a Comment