So what is "terrorism"? Most definitions, such as that of the UN, say it is an act of violence against non-military targets, and other definitions add that it intends to coerce others to meet certain political goals. This, of course, begs the question about what a military target is, and what forms of "coercion" are permissible and not permissible. It is also interesting to note that definitions such as that of the UN explicitly stipulate that terrorists are those who are acting independently of a specific country (although the UN definition does make the blanket claim that all war crimes are acts of terrorism).
So what happens when a professional military force of an established country invades a territory? It uses force to impose a political "solution" upon the civilian (not to mention military) population. It may not bomb busses or assassinate political leaders, but it does use coercion.
What happens, however, if a political entity is not established? If the people do not have an "established" country - if they have been forced (coerced) out of their land or their freedom of self-determination has been taken away by a professional military force? What if a group of people is too poor to buy brigades of tanks, batteries of artillery pieces, or squadrons of bombers? Is war something only for those who have big bank accounts?
Such thinking outlaws "popular" (i.e. grass roots, as opposed to bureaucratic) struggles, and "Peoples' Wars," where guerillas fight the "establishment" they believe to be depriving them of their rights. These people may not be able to win by spending a lot of resources on tanks, but they have advantages in other areas. They have time on their side - they are not the invaders. A good strategy for them may be to harass the enemy, to not let them rest, and to fight by stealth in small units rather than by massive military operations of well-equipped forces.
Is it right to hurt and intimade people just because they disagree with you? Of course not, and perhaps this is the meaning of terrorism that most people might agree with in a non-political sense. However, what about civilians who serve the military of an invading force? What about the bureaucrats who assist dictators and exploiters in imposing their will on others? What about colonists and settlers who are armed and believe they have an ideological duty to clear certain lands of "out-group" populations?
Freedom fighting is not only about fighting people who wear uniforms, and it is not only reserved for the rich and one of the "official part of a division of a nation," as the UN says. It is about fighting for the right to live the way one wants to live in one's areas, without taking away that right from others. The enemy may be in the military, or they may be civilians. The maintenance of oppression may stem from military bases, or they may stem from government buildings. Care should be taken in not automatically thinking that only coercion by and on military targets is justified, and that civilians could not possibly be oppressors. It is usually the civilians that send and pay for the professional soldiers to impose their will on others (i.e. in "unjustified" offensive operations), that form the colonies to populate regions after they have been depopulated of their inhabitants, and that believe it is acceptable to use coercion to implement political goals as long as they do it under a flag of the status quo.
Comrade S
