Monday, on NPR, I heard a diplomat from Syria complain about the designation of Hammas members as terrorists.
"I am confused," he said. "How do you define terrorists? We call them freedom fighters!"
Well, Abdullah, I'll be happy to help you out. You see, America has a history of freedom fighters. We used militias in our fight for freedom from the British. We also sent freedom fighters to help other people free themselves from oppression. As a Tennessean, I'm very familiar with our Volunteer tradition, so I think I have a handle on the difference between a "freedom fighter" and terrorist.
I'll keep it simple for you, so you can follow along.
A freedom fighter fights against other warriors. He attacks military targets. While he uses guerilla tactics, he acknowledges some rules of engagement, and does his best to avoid collateral damage. As an example, in the seige of the Alamo, both armies made sure to protect the non-combatants caught in the crossfire. As another example, look at the recent US bombing of Baghdad. The stray missiles falling into civilian areas were a big news story precisely because they were so rare. Every effort was made to spare the non combatant population.
A terrorist, on the other hand, deliberately seeks out non combatants as his target. He doesn't attack a military target; he straps explosives to his body, then goes out and strikes against weak targets, usually women and children. An innate coward, he hasn't the stomach to face a warrior in combat, instead he slaughters the innocent through stealth and deception. He accepts no rules of engagement, preferring instead total war.
The difference is the same as the one between a lion and a rabid dog. Both are killers, but only one needs to be put down by a civilized society.
Any questions?
Posted by Rich at October 9, 2003 12:59 PM | TrackBackSteven Jukes of Reuters wrote that "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist..." in reference to the 9/11 attacks. This bothered me because assuming this is true (which, by definition, is not), how can the 19 hijackers be called freedom fighters? How is attacking America fighting for freedom? Freedom fighters are generally a group or militia fighting against the established government or governing body which is oppressing them. This wasn't the case on 9/11--in reality, the Afghanis who were fighting against the Taliban could be considered freedom fighters, but Al Qaeda are simply terrorists.
Boy am I glad I left Reuters in 2000...
Posted by: Tom Schneider on October 9, 2003 1:22 PMI think the big problem is to them, all Americans are combatents. All Americans are equally responsible for whatever wrongs they imagine we've done to them, all are answerable for these "crimes", and as such all are legitimate targets.
Yes, even babies. Yes, even the mentally handicapped. Yes, even people who've welcomed Muslims into their homes, their neighborhoods, their churches, their schools. We're all at fault, we're all the blame, we're all at war with them.
That's not in the slightest bit a defense - it's an unfortunate explanation for their mindset.
Posted by: Barry on October 10, 2003 10:40 AMIf what you're saying is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, then pre-emptive action is really the only option we have. Waiting for an imminent threat was a worthwhile exercise in retraint when the potential targets were primarily combatants, who choose to face that risk. When the target could be anybody, including, as you pointed out, children, then it is an unwarranted risk.
This is how the world changed on Sept. 11, and I will feel much more secure when more people internalize that shift, and evaluate their beliefs accordingly.
Posted by: rich on October 10, 2003 5:59 PMfreedom fighters?
well, firefighters fight fire.....
crimefighters fight crime.....
so what are they fighting?
hmmmm..... it boggles the mind.
Posted by: mayor jimmy on October 12, 2003 10:29 AM