Argumentative Essay: Terrorist Vis-à-vis Freedom Fighter
Introduction
The looming threat of terrorism has triggered the emergence of the labels “terrorist” and “freedom fighter”. Both commonly refer to the same person – the attacker involved in any activity subject to subjective definitions leading to labels of either terrorism or revolution. Yet, the divide between the two terms revealed difficulties in defining who terrorists are and those are that fit the label of being a freedom fighter. A deconstruction of the two labels herein will attempt to clarify their definitions.
Is A Person A Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?
Defining whether a person is a terrorist or a freedom fighter would entail a better clarification of terrorism. Indeed, the ambiguity between the two terms is highly apparent that it has led to the saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Yet, one must remember that the foregoing statement is perspective-driven. Depending on the subjective orientation of the definer, a person is conceived as a terrorist due to his violent means but he could become a freedom fighter if he seeks to achieve national liberation. Nevertheless, a freedom fighter – one who advocates national freedom, is not a terrorist even if he resorts to violent means. An ends-based approach in the succeeding sections will emphasize the difference between the two commonly-misused labels (Ganor, 2002, p. 292).
While different schools of thought have proposed the subjectivity of the definition of terrorism, an objective definition is highly essential for this study. Objectively, terrorism has particular defining parameters in international law, most notably those contained in both the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention. Thus, defining what a terrorist is requires a perusal of relevant international law provisions (Ganor, 2002, p. 288).
Terrorism
Common among different definitions of terrorism is the notion of the use of violence as a means to extract ends from a population or any governing body. Yet, various ambiguities across the literature have led to confused notions on the concept. There is no established notion as to who could practice terrorism, the people who could become targets and whether the only end of terrorist attacks is to cause fear to targets (Goodwin, 2006, p.2028). Nevertheless, it is best to rely on the objective notion of terrorist, one that lies within several provisions of international law tackling such threat. Objectively, terrorists are thus those who commit international law violations on terrorism (Ganor, 2002, p. 303).
Freedom Fighting
Freedom fighters refer to those whose aim is to attain national liberation. Their use of violence as recourse to reaching their ends has led to comparisons to terrorists, and that the label “terrorists” applies to them, depending on subjective notions. Yet, it is noteworthy to emphasize those terrorists and freedom fighters are different from one another. Freedom fighters, objectively, have to limit themselves to guerrilla activities – meaning they could target those from the military and any entity involved in national security. They become terrorists if they start targeting civilians, since terrorism – imbued within international law confines, involves having to inflict terror on a population in order to achieve particular associated ends. Thus, freedom fighters are those who have the ability to use violence against national security entities (Ganor, 2002, p. 298).
Conclusion
A terrorist and a freedom fighter is not the same as one another. The saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a perspective-driven misnomer that is clarified through the emphasis of the different ends of a terrorist and a freedom fighter. To distinguish between the two, it is crucial to study the objective definition of terrorism, which lies on international law. The objective definition of terrorism largely defines civilians as main targets. That makes a freedom fighter different from a terrorist, since freedom fighting – in this case, struggling for causes of national liberation, strictly involves guerrilla activities aimed against elements of national security, particularly the military. Thus, a terrorist and a freedom fighter could not become the same person. One could only become the other, depending on certain actions.
References
Ganor, B., 2002. Defining terrorism: Is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Police Practice and Research, 3(4), pp. 287-304.
Goodwin, J., 2006. A theory of categorical terrorism. Social Forces, 84(4), pp. 2027-2046.
