The Yeti\’s Cyber Smithy

Terrorism, Freedom Fighters, and Nazis

“I saw the news today oh boy.” I forget the politician. I forget his cause. But I do remember what made me stop listening to him. He used the word terrorist to indicate a nation’s military simply because that nation opposed a cause that he was sympathic to.

Some many years ago, I supported the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan by not only contributing to their cause but by raising contributions for their cause. At the time, Afghanistan was in a horrible fight for liberation from the now late but then oppressive super power the Soviet Union. The former Soviet Union called them terrorists. I called them Freedom Fighters. Today, the United States holds Afghanistan citizens in prison for their actions during the US invasion. We are told they are terrorists and chances are man of them are. But using the word terrorist as a blanket term alarms me. During the Revolutionary War for the independence of the United States of America, the British considered the freedom fighters of the United States to be terrorists. It seems back then a terrorist was someone who did not wear a uniform and hid behind trees to avoid being shot.

We throw the words terrorist and terrorism around a lot today. Certainly many of the suspected terrorists being held today are deserving of being held. Certianly many of them are in fact terrorists. But what about folk such as the enemy combatants in Afghanistan? People who fired on U.S. combatants during the invasion of their country. If someone were to invade the United States, I imagine there would be plenty of people in blue jeans with all sorts of weapons (improvised and not) ready to fight back. Would they too be called terrorists? I find this use of the word terrorist to be not only odd, but belittling to the scope of the word.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is rather clear in explaining that the founders of this country expected such. So is it right to classify these folk in the same category with people who would willfully kill the people who died in the Oklahoma Federal Building attack where a daycare center was located? Do we really want to use the same word to describe those who would defend their country as well as those who would deliberately murder children?

Having been a member of not only the US Military but later a member of shall we say a private army, I think it is important to point out the difference between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter. That difference is not what a person wears and not even what the person does, but who that person targets. In all violent military actions, there is the potential for civilian casualty. This is often called collateral damage because it is not the direct intent. The soldier and freedom fighters of this world may accidentally harm non-combatants, but they neither willfully seek that outcome nor show willful disreguard for the potential of such collateral damage. He or she fights with honor. Terrorists, on the other hand, do not see ‘collateral damage’ as the damage they inflict on civilians is intentional.

In fighting disease, there is sometimes side effects of the treatment (collateral damage). It is the difference between using a chemical as a drug with side effects (soldiers and freedom fighters) and using the same chemical to intentionally poison a person. If you give chemotherapy to a cancer patient, it is an act of practicing medicine. If you give that same medicine to a healthy person, it is the act of poisoning. It is the intent that defines the actions, not the other way around. If a person either deliberately or with willful negligence targets civilians, then s/he is a terrorist.

Now this is not to say that just because a person is not a terrorist that his or her cause is just. I do not think the front line soldiers of Germany’s WWII battles were fighting for a just cause, but I could not possibly consider them terrorists by definition. Yes, they inspired terror. Yes, their cause employed terrorists and terrorism in other ways. But to call a uniformed front line soldier a terrorist just smacks this former soldier in me across the face with a wet flounder. It neither feels or smells good.

Terrorism is something that all real soldiers oppose. In fact, the Uniform Code of Military Justice which all US combatants swear to follow specifically opposes such actions and offers severe punishments for. However, that same code by which all US combatants swear also demands that fellow combatants be treated with certain respects and dignities. As an example, prisoners are not used to check for and clear mined roads by walking in front of a formation during transportation. They are protected.

There are terrorists in this world. Those folk are despicable in every sense of the word. But if we continue to throw the word terrorist at everyone who raises a military in opposition to our own or to the will of a particular politician, well the word looses meaning. It is kind of like using the word Nazi against someone who offers a bad book review.

Many thanks to American combatants who fight with honor. You assure my children a life of freedom. Now if we can only get out politicians to do the same.