Who is a terrorist?
Reader comment on item: Aim the War on Terror at Militant Islam

Submitted by Peter Meyer Viol (Belgium), Sep 23, 2002 at 04:20

It seems to me that in the future it is not only militant Islam who is involved but much more resistance against an authority which is not accepted.

Now, are so called freedomfighters terrorists? Is everybody who uses violence a terrorist, or only if he/she who uses violence against civilians?

If there is a legal --(inter)national law-- basis for resisitance, is a violent resister then still a terrorist? It is clear that there is a big difference between violent and non-violent action; the last one is not discussed.


To prevent a wild west chaos in international relations it seems to me that there should be an official definition of terrorism accepted by the international community and not only by the United States. A multilateral approach is essential, which means there should be an international accepted definition of "terrorism". If not, every country can fight people they don't like for one reason or another at random and call it its fight against terror.

I am of the second worldwar generation (1924) and remember that we were very happy each time when we heard or experienced bombing of German cities and a hundred thousand victims, women and children, because Germany was the evil occupier!

Nobody at that time talked about terrorism but about legal defense against the Nazi- aggressor.

Dr. Peter Meyer Viol

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.