Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?

[Bob's World]

"terrorist" is absolutely a loaded label designed to render both the actor and the action as illegitimate. Sometimes it is actually the best label. Often it is not.

Are most "freedom fighters"? Many certainly are. Many fight for revenge, but that is OK too, and is the primary rationale behind the US-led response to 9/11.

I think it is also important to distinguish the difference between "why men fight" and "why conflicts occur." An organization with a primary purpose of freedom or revenge will always attract a large number who are simply young and seeking adventure, or are followers, or are sadists, or just need a check, etc, etc.

On Maslow's hierarchy, why men fight is driven more by the factors at the base of the pyramid, but why populace-based conflicts occur is driven more by the factors at the top. Both fuse in the middle, so there is no clean distinction.

But our rule of law approach and love of slapping broad labels of "terrorist" or "terrorism" onto organizations and individuals may well facilitate targeting, but it is a huge obstacle to actually working to resolve the drivers of why such organizations came to exist, and why they endure despite the best of our efforts to "CT" them into submission. Bribing populaces with Development is equally ineffective; as are governance programs that focus on giving others the leaders and forms of government that we deem are the "best guards for their future security."

Labels only help when they are smart to begin with and when they are never taken too literally or applied too permanently. Unfortunately, when it comes to terrorism labels, we break all three of those rules.

[Dayuhan]

Always worth looking at whether individuals or groups are fighting to stop their government (or someone else) from doing something to them or to impose something they prefer - usually themselves in power - on the government.

I've never bought the idea that people fight government, as insurgents or as terrorists, because the government has failed to deliver services or economic progress, especially in places where expectations of government are very low to start with. People fight because they are scared and/or angry, because government is messing with them, or because they want to take over and advance their own goals and ambitions. Those in the latter category often exploit those in the former category, and the wise counterinsurgent will aim to disaggregate the two by addressing the cause of the fear and anger that drive the footsoldier. That won't convert those who merely want to impose themselves and their ideology, but it will isolate them.