NationStates Jolt Archive

The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter, is frankly, blindingly obvious and I am getting fustrated by the number of people who are using the confusion that some people have as a way of advancing the legimacy of terrorists.

The definition of terrorisit and freedom fighter does not at all involve the cause that they are fighting for. No matter whose cause or what mission you are trying to advance, you may still be a terrorist or a freedom fighter. You may have the most rightous and noble cause in the worlds history, but if your tatics are that of a terrorist then you are a terrorist.

The similarities are as follows (amoungst others)
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists are sub-national (in a majority of cases)
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists do not have uniforms or any other offical recognition
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists will most likly use improvised or illicitly aquired weapons

However the differnece comes quite clearly in the tatics
- A freedom fighter will ONLY target those whom are a direct threat to his/her freedom, which means they will only target the millitary/government instalations of the opressing power
- A terrorist will target anyone and everyone whose death would advance his/her cause. But more specificly they will often target civilian targets in order to inflict terror upon the civilian population to create political pressure on the government to discontinue whatever opression they are carrying out

A common distinction, although not universally true is the following
- A freedom fighter will not hide amoung civilians, as he/she ultimately should have the civilians interest at heart, thus he/she should not want them to die protecting them
- A terrorist will blur ammoung civilians in order to protect themselves from the wrath of any power who seeks their elimination, in the knowledge that if they want to kill them, they have to also kill a great many civilians which would severly discourage them

- A freedom fighter will not hide amoung civilians, as he/she ultimately should have the civilians interest at heart, thus he/she should not want them to die protecting them
- A terrorist will blur ammoung civilians in order to protect themselves from the wrath of any power who seeks their elimination, in the knowledge that if they want to kill them, they have to also kill a great many civilians which would severly discourage them

History disagrees with you. See any form of resistance against occupation by foreign powers for examples.

History disagrees with you. See any form of resistance against occupation by foreign powers for examples.

Indeed, the last two are inacurate with the French resistance, you are correct. I'll edit

History disagrees with you. See any form of resistance against occupation by foreign powers for examples.

Like the Vietcong, for example. They fought French and American occupiers, but also hid amongst civilians and used civilians as cover. Freedom fighters or terrorists?

Like the Vietcong, for example. They fought French and American occupiers, but also hid amongst civilians and used civilians as cover. Freedom fighters or terrorists?

Seeing as they won, that makes them freedom fighters. Sort of like the colonists in central North America, or the indigenous people of Africa and so on - if they win, they get to write history, and thus end up being freedom fighters and noble, as opposed to common tax evading slave owners or crazy wannabe dictators.

However the differnece comes quite clearly in the tatics
- A freedom fighter will ONLY target those whom are a direct threat to his/her freedom, which means they will only target the millitary/government instalations of the opressing power


Also untrue upon further examination. Resistance groups throughout history have been noted to target and remove civilians who are inconvenient to their cause. Collaborators, informers, factory workers (normally involved in war infrastructure) and other such people. Not all of the attacks were solely aimed to kill, but also to spread terror and reduce cooperation with the occupying power.

Seeing as they won, that makes them freedom fighters. Sort of like the colonists in central North America, or the indigenous people of Africa and so on - if they win, they get to write history, and thus end up being freedom fighters and noble.

Its not about who wins, its about the tatics. The vietcong did not target south vietnamese civilians, just the American millitay.

Indeed, the last two are inacurate with the French resistance, you are correct. I'll edit

French, Dutch, Irish, Russian, Norwegian etc. Also as they targeted those who cooperated with the occupiers, one could say they did not target just military targets.

I think you are wrong, because these so-called freedom fighters may attack civilians, but normally only civilians from the oppressor to show to the population of the oppressor that they did not took the right solution.
But what is also happening now is that SUNNI islamics are killing SHI'A islamics and vice versa. So they can also be called freedom fighters, because they don't attack there "own" people.

Its not about who wins, its about the tatics. The vietcong did not target south vietnamese civilians, just the American millitay.


They did indeed target South Vietnamese - Hue being a good example.

Its not about who wins, its about the tatics.

BS. People we gladly recognise as freedom fighters today did the most godawful stuff, but since they won they wrote history.

A freedom fighter will ONLY target those whom are a direct threat to his/her freedom, which means they will only target the millitary/government instalations of the opressing power
- A terrorist will target anyone and everyone whose death would advance his/her cause. But more specificly they will often target civilian targets in order to inflict terror upon the civilian population to create political pressure on the government to discontinue whatever opression they are carrying out.

this distinction blurs significantly when the civilian population is complacent (and indeed participates) in the oppression perpetuated by the government.

take the haitian revolution: they slaughtered the french civilian population en masse - because the french civilian population was complacent, and participated in their oppression. the resistance movement often involved poisoning entire families and killing civilians in their sleep. it was brutal, it had every intention of spreading terror amongst the french civilians, and I've never heard of anyone siding with the french slavers. when civilians act on a vested economic interest in the exploitation of others they become "valid" targets for freedom fighters. the main difference between this scenario and the modern world is that the corperation takes away individual responsibility for exploitation, and modern technology means the average person on the street can benefit from the slavery of people thousands of miles away - and as long as they financially support that exploitation, they aren't really any different from the french in haiti.

I'm not saying that al quaeda (however you spell it) was justified in their attacks - just that the americans, and indeed the entire western world, are not behaving very differently than the oppressors of the last century whose horrific deaths we now celebrate. there's not a significant difference between the person who hears about the exploitation of others on the news, and the person who sees slaves in thier fields and ignores the issue. they both are aware there's a problem. they both continue to participate in the economic system that perpetuates the abuses. when the exploited kill the person participating in agrarian slavery, we call it justice. when the exploited kill the person participating in modern slavery, we call it terrorism.

were the exploited saints, they would not resist their oppressors. however, they are not. they have greivances, and they act out in violence because of them. bin laden and his ilk are no more justified in hating *all* westerners than the children of a runaway slave would be in hating *all* white people. still, both of them have greivances against the system we choose to perpetuate. ackwnoledging this does not mean I'm advancing the legitimacy of terrorism. I'm just saying entire cultures do not go berserk for no reason, and that we often are the last to see our own wrongdoings.

I am getting fustrated by the number of people who are using the confusion that some people have as a way of advancing the legimacy of terrorists.

I've said this before. my point was actually to suggest that freedom fighters are illigitimate and that all conflict is no better than terrorism. I'm saying that terrorists are as good as the american military - what I mean is that anyone who kills another human being is horribly, horribly wrong. bombing cities from a jet is no different from suicide bombing from the ground - in fact it's much more deadly, and much less brave. everybody who's acting out in violence is absolutely sure they're in the right. as far as I'm concerned, all of them are wrong - and wrong in the same degree.

I think many nationalists in Northern Ireland c.1969 might disagree with you regarding the Provisional IRA.

this distinction blurs significantly when the civilian population is complacent (and indeed participates) in the oppression perpetuated by the government. ~snip~


Absolutely. I'm glad you said it. It was way too long for me to manage.

Becket court, care to cut to the chase and give us an example of some group you consider to fit the description of 'freedom fighters', and we'll see how well they fit your criteria?

Its not about who wins, its about the tatics. The vietcong did not target south vietnamese civilians, just the American millitay.

Your assessment and definition are absurd.

"If firefighters fight fires and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin

And many who oppossed the IRA who disagree with you. Hence "one mans...."

How can they disagree with me? At least some northern nationalists in the 1970s did see them as freedom fighters! Unionists seen them as terrorists. Therefore the original posters claim that "One mans terrorist is NOT another mans freedom fighter" cannot be true.

"If firefighters fight fires and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin

Freedom fries :p

"If firefighters fight fires and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin

America.

How can they disagree with me? At least some northern nationalists in the 1970s did see them as freedom fighters! Unionists seen them as terrorists. Therefore the original posters claim that "One mans terrorist is NOT another mans freedom fighter" cannot be true.

Sorry. confusion on my part, I'll delete the post.

The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter, is frankly, blindingly obvious and I am getting fustrated by the number of people who are using the confusion that some people have as a way of advancing the legimacy of terrorists.

Some discussion points for you then. Were the people involved in the creation of the U.S.A terrorists of freedom fighters? If freedom fighters, explain their treatment of the American Indians.

Some discussion points for you then. Were the people involved in the creation of the U.S.A terrorists of freedom fighters? If freedom fighters, explain their treatment of the American Indians.

In many cases they did indeed commit terrorsit atrocities, such as the the blankets infected with smallpox. Terrorism should probebly be less linked to people as it is to actions.

In many cases they did indeed commit terrorsit atrocities, such as the the blankets infected with smallpox. Terrorism should probebly be less linked to people as it is to actions.

exactly. you know the marine corps hymn? "from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli"? - "the halls of montezuma" refers to a battle that involved an entire batallion of marines fighting against fewer than a dozen children (as in, 9-12) who had been attending a military academy in a city in mexico - the capital, I think. after the children successfully held off the marines for a goodly length of time, they wrapped themselves in a mexican flag and lept from the battlements of their school. the marines were finally able to get in once the grade-school children commited suicide. this is somehow counted as a victory - they actually fucking sing about it like it was a wonderful thing. why were we invading mexico? because we annexed a huge portion of their territory with no justification, and they defended their homeland from (our) foreign agression. if a muslim force did the same thing to an american military academy, people would be ranting for years about how monstrous the men who attacked that school were. since it was *americans* who couldn't manage to successfully invade a grade-school until they forced the students to suicide, it's sung about like the marines were heroic. there are still streets everywhere in mexico called "street of the child martyrs". heroism and atrocity a very, very relative concepts indeed. one turns into the other, depending who you listen to.

exactly. you know the marine corps hymn? "from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli"? - "the halls of montezuma" refers to a battle that involved an entire batallion of marines fighting against fewer than a dozen children (as in, 9-12) who had been attending a military academy in a city in mexico - the capital, I think. after the children successfully held off the marines for a goodly length of time, they wrapped themselves in a mexican flag and lept from the battlements of their school. the marines were finally able to get in once the grade-school children commited suicide. this is somehow counted as a victory - they actually fucking sing about it like it was a wonderful thing. why were we invading mexico? because we annexed a huge portion of their territory with no justification, and they defended their homeland from (our) foreign agression. if a muslim force did the same thing to an american military academy, people would be ranting for years about how monstrous the men who attacked that school were. since it was *americans* who couldn't manage to successfully invade a grade-school until they forced the students to suicide, it's sung about like the marines were heroic. there are still streets everywhere in mexico called "street of the child martyrs". heroism and atrocity a very, very relative concepts indeed. one turns into the other, depending who you listen to.


Good to see that after a brief flirtation or two fighting people well armed and capable of fighting back, for something resembling a worthy cause, America has returned to its core values over the last 50 years, picking fights with poor 'brownish' types. Its the fights their forefathers fought for, afterall.

Sorry. confusion on my part, I'll delete the post.

No problem.

exactly. you know the marine corps hymn? "from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli"? - "the halls of montezuma" refers to a battle that involved an entire batallion of marines fighting against fewer than a dozen children (as in, 9-12) ...

...or, if for some insane reason you place any credence in the official Mexican records, slightly under 400 soldiers. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Indeed, the last two are inacurate with the French resistance, you are correct. I'll edit
And the Irish resistance in the war or independence. and most other such freedom fighters.

The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter, is frankly, blindingly obvious and I am getting fustrated by the number of people who are using the confusion that some people have as a way of advancing the legimacy of terrorists.

In your opinion.

Its not about who wins, its about the tatics. The vietcong did not target south vietnamese civilians, just the American millitay.

Not entirely true. In some cases, the VC coerced local villagers into hiding them and not co-operating with the Americans and South Vietnamese troops. They also tortured and killed villagers who did co-operate with the Allies.

- Both freedom fighters and terrorists do not have uniforms or any other offical recognition
A bit sweeping here... if there's a 'proper' fight going on, some groups will wear, for example, an armband, to signify them as 'on their side' and, more to the point, say that whoever was shooting at them should have been able to tell them from civilians if there were any civilian casualties.
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists will most likly use improvised or illicitly aquired weapons
Also not true. The Muhad'juhadeen and Provos were sent weapons by the US. The Vietcong were sent weapons by the USSR.

I wouldn't really call that "illicitly aquired" myself.
However the differnece comes quite clearly in the tatics
No, the difference is a purely semantic one, and it's chosen by whoever 'won' the war.
- A freedom fighter will ONLY target those whom are a direct threat to his/her freedom, which means they will only target the millitary/government instalations of the opressing power
Or any civilians which comply with their foes, making them a part of the enemy. Every resistance group will have killed hundreds or thousands of "traitors" like this.
- A terrorist will target anyone and everyone whose death would advance his/her cause. But more specificly they will often target civilian targets in order to inflict terror upon the civilian population to create political pressure on the government to discontinue whatever opression they are carrying out

In many cases it's the same with freedom fighters. If you start a civil war in your own country, involving mass civilian deaths, foreign invaders and especially their civilians "back home" are going to be disgusted by this and will eventually leave.

Those are terrorist actions, but for the cause of gaining freedom.

I disagree.

The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter, is frankly, blindingly obvious and I am getting fustrated by the number of people who are using the confusion that some people have as a way of advancing the legimacy of terrorists.

The definition of terrorisit and freedom fighter does not at all involve the cause that they are fighting for. No matter whose cause or what mission you are trying to advance, you may still be a terrorist or a freedom fighter. You may have the most rightous and noble cause in the worlds history, but if your tatics are that of a terrorist then you are a terrorist.

The similarities are as follows (amoungst others)
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists are sub-national (in a majority of cases)
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists do not have uniforms or any other offical recognition
- Both freedom fighters and terrorists will most likly use improvised or illicitly aquired weapons

However the differnece comes quite clearly in the tatics
- A freedom fighter will ONLY target those whom are a direct threat to his/her freedom, which means they will only target the millitary/government instalations of the opressing power
- A terrorist will target anyone and everyone whose death would advance his/her cause. But more specificly they will often target civilian targets in order to inflict terror upon the civilian population to create political pressure on the government to discontinue whatever opression they are carrying out

A common distinction, although not universally true is the following
- A freedom fighter will not hide amoung civilians, as he/she ultimately should have the civilians interest at heart, thus he/she should not want them to die protecting them
- A terrorist will blur ammoung civilians in order to protect themselves from the wrath of any power who seeks their elimination, in the knowledge that if they want to kill them, they have to also kill a great many civilians which would severly discourage them

You may have some legitimacy in that distinction that you've come up with in your head, but words mean what people use them to mean. We called the Contras in Nicaragua "Freedom Fighters," but they targetted civilian operations all the time. Kidnapped and murdered individual civilians that had no real connection to the government, often just to steal their money, and then rape their daughters while they were at it. They funded themselves with bank robberies and kidnappings, many of which involved murder (bank security) and torture (sending body parts to parents). The first operation that they did with the assistance of our CIA was to blow up two heavily trafficed bridges (only one successfully.) They didn't do this to hamper troop movements. Troops got around by helicopter. They did it to make a point that they had the power to kill lots of people and to embarrass the government.

And we treated them as nationalist heroes.

We called the bombing of the USS Cole a "terrorist bombing." But if the Cole wasn't a legitimate military target, I don't know what is.

It would be nice if we could catagorize groups into "good guys" and "bad guys," but the simple fact is that people just aren't nice. And most people aren't smart enough to make distinctions like that in their daily lives. That's why the phrase "torture" shows up so often with the phrase "if it saves lives." It's like saying "I'm not usually in favor of sodomizing ducks with hot curling irons, but if it will cure AIDS..."

To leftists, a terrorist is anyone who kills communists.

To rightists, a terrorist is anyone who supports change through revolutionary means.

To me, a terrorist is anyone who attacks non-military targets, civilians, and other "soft" targets, etc. His goal is irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive.

It would be nice if we could catagorize groups into "good guys" and "bad guys," but the simple fact is that people just aren't nice.

Personally I'm in favour of reinstalling the old white hat/black hat system. Back in them days we knew where we stood.

What is a terrorist? Look at the word. It's right in there.

A terrorist is a a person who attempts to effect change upon a chosen target group utilizing terror as the means to effect said change.

I'll say it again...because it bears repeating.

A terrorist is a a person who attempts to effect change upon a chosen target group utilizing terror as the means to effect said change.

That means that if you are attempting to modify your designated "enemy's" behavior via the mass application of fear--fear of explosion, fear of kidnap, fear of invasion, fear of violent assrape--then you are, ipso facto, a terrorist.

"The bombings will continue until the Jews leave."
"I'll blow up your bicycle if you keep supporting that tyrant Thieu."
"Shock & awe"

Both sides of these stupid little debates hold the party line so hard that they fail to see the obvious things right before them.

It's called a dictionary, guys. You can pick one up for about $5 at any bookstore.

It's called a dictionary, guys. You can pick one up for about $5 at any bookstore.

Ain't nothing like building your worldview on the basis of someone else's received opinion, is there?

Ain't nothing like building your worldview on the basis of someone else's received opinion, is there?

You mean like people who follow dictators, presidents, prime ministers, kings, popes, imams, rabbis, & the like without balancing all possibilities?

By the current Americo-popular definition of the term I am a terrorist. By the actual established definition of the word, I am not. I'll go for the latter, & not because it might make me look good to others, rather because it's the truth.

By the actual established definition of the word, I am not. I'll go for the latter, & not because it might make me look good to others, rather because it's the truth.

Probelm for you: there is no singular 'actual established definition' of the word, at best the multiple definitions can be said to have family resemblances.

Probelm for you: there is no singular 'actual established definition' of the word, at best the multiple definitions can be said to have family resemblances.

oh there you go, bringing ludwig into it again.

Probelm for you: there is no singular 'actual established definition' of the word, at best the multiple definitions can be said to have family resemblances.

There's a certain continuity established across dictionaries.

There's a certain continuity established across dictionaries.

Do said dictionaries function as moral arbiters?

No, they serve as volumes that define words. It would be tantamount to calling you a grapefruit. I can demand & insinuate it all I want, but you wouldn't be one, would you?

Problem for you: there is no singular 'actual established definition' of the word, at best the multiple definitions can be said to have family resemblances.
The problem of the word terrorism, is that state sponsored terrorism isn't called that, when it should be. Shikishima's dictionary definition looks pretty obvious and correct. By a impartial observer, who hasn't swallowed the propoganda, hook, line and sinker, the U.S.A. Shock and Awe is terrorism, The IDF commit terrorism, Hizbollah commit terrorism, Al-Quaeda commit terrorism. The non goverment forces are either honest to admit it, or don't have the media machine to spin it.

.

The definition of terrorisit and freedom fighter does not at all involve the cause that they are fighting for.

Of course it does.

Anyone who is, by any loose defintion of a "freedom fighter" is fighting for his own, or others freedom from an invading, or occupying army.

You completely overlook the word "perspective".
Thats entirely because the true definition of the two terms are nothing more than that.
Perspective.



No matter whose cause or what mission you are trying to advance, you may still be a terrorist or a freedom fighter. You may have the most rightous and noble cause in the worlds history, but if your tatics are that of a terrorist then you are a terrorist.

Once again, thats all perspective.
Would you consder the intentional firebombing of a German town that held little militaristic value for either side, yet was intentionally firestormed, to kill ans many people as possible, terrorism?

I sure would.

See: Dresden, Germany.

Would you consider placing signs that clearly read, "Poison!" at any water supply you come by "terrorism"?
Becuase the British army did that quite a bit in WW2.
Its not illegal to place such signs, if you dont actually poison the water.
However, quite a few german troops died from dehydration.

So whats the difference between firebombing a town full of civillians, or tricking soldiers into dying from thirst, or strapping a bomb on your ass, and walking into a coffee shop?

Nothing.

Its all about killing as many of "them" as you can, however you can.

If you were invading my country, I would do everything I could to take as many of "you" with me when I go.

I would be a "Freedom Fighter" to my people.
To you, I would be a "terrorist".

Its all about perpsective, and making your own people see your perspective only.

Nothing more.

Of course one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

One man believes someone is a terrorist.

One man believes that person is a freedom fighter.

Some discussion points for you then. Were the people involved in the creation of the U.S.A terrorists of freedom fighters? If freedom fighters, explain their treatment of the American Indians.

And lest we forget tar and feathering british supporters? Civillian or not, there is only one true distinction in concerns to freedom fighters or terrorists.

The difference is whether they are fighting for a cause you believe in, or not.

Al Qaeda views thier attacks against the USA as a good thing, because the USA/UN had supported Israel since its conception, and most muslims in the ME hate the Jews. Mainly because they kicked out the palestinians (Well, actually it was Britian). Terrorist or freedom fighter are subjective terms.

And lest we forget, Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter in the 70s, after all, he was combatting the evil known as communism.

I think that "terrorism" and "freedom fighting" are two completely different things.

"Terrorism" is a tactic. It is aimed to give the enemy problems by creating a widespread fear through hitting civilian, not-fighting targets. The terrorist tactic, historically, has been used by criminal organisations (see: Mafia bombings in Italy in the early '90s), political organisations (see: Red and Black political terrorists in Italy in the '70s), by regular armed forces (see: Allied aerial bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Axis bombing of Coventry in WW2), by "freedom fighters" (see: PLO-linked actions such as the taking of hostages at the Muenchen Olympic Games, or the taking of the "Achille Lauro" cruising ship; or ETA, IRA, just to name the most famous). To make it clear, let's have an example with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Blasting a bomb in a Tel Aviv square is terrorism; firing an RPG on a Israeli military truck isn't (that's not a civilian target).

"Freedom fighters" (or also "partisans" sometimes) are political groups that use organised, military-style actions to achieve a political end - change of government (like italian partisans against the fascists in 1943-1945), independence of a country from an invader (like french Resistance in WW2), independence of a part of a country (like IRA or ETA). Sometimes they use terrorism, sometimes they don't.

So, you could have terrorist freedom fighters, non-terrorist freedom fighters, terrorist regular armies, non-terrorist regular armies...

Anyone who feels one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter clearly wishes to ignore history and other evidence to the contrary.

and most muslims in the ME hate the Jews.

Nitpick - they tend to hate Israel and Zionism, not Jews.

But on this vein - many ME terrorist groups view attacks on Israeli civilians as justified fr several reasons:

- They feel 'civilain' is a bit generous when much of the adult population is armed and all have done military service.
- They view the citizens of Israel complicit with the actions of the Army. The army acts for the citizens and the citizens choose the government who direct the army.
- They view those in the West Bank as agressive invaders - as they take land from the locals by force.

Many of these groups are regarded in the West as terrorist aas they are attacking civilains, however they do not view themselves as attacking civilians and hence do not view themselves as terrorists.

Like the Vietcong, for example. They fought French and American occupiers, but also hid amongst civilians and used civilians as cover. Freedom fighters or terrorists?

Greetings

That really depends on ones point of wiew, doesn´t it?

exactly. you know the marine corps hymn? "from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli"? - "the halls of montezuma" refers to a battle that involved an entire batallion of marines fighting against fewer than a dozen children (as in, 9-12) who had been attending a military academy in a city in mexico - the capital, I think. after the children successfully held off the marines for a goodly length of time, they wrapped themselves in a mexican flag and lept from the battlements of their school. the marines were finally able to get in once the grade-school children commited suicide. this is somehow counted as a victory - they actually fucking sing about it like it was a wonderful thing. why were we invading mexico? because we annexed a huge portion of their territory with no justification, and they defended their homeland from (our) foreign agression. if a muslim force did the same thing to an american military academy, people would be ranting for years about how monstrous the men who attacked that school were. since it was *americans* who couldn't manage to successfully invade a grade-school until they forced the students to suicide, it's sung about like the marines were heroic. there are still streets everywhere in mexico called "street of the child martyrs". heroism and atrocity a very, very relative concepts indeed. one turns into the other, depending who you listen to.


Greetings

Tuff story but not quite true, here´s the wiki-side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chapultepec

Many of these groups are regarded in the West as terrorist aas they are attacking civilains, however they do not view themselves as attacking civilians and hence do not view themselves as terrorists.

Greetings

That, in my point off view, does not justifi attacking civilians.

If I, saw someone as dangerous and the person at the same time had done militaryservice, would that justifi "neutralising" him/her?