Current - #201 - #8 - I’m at a loss as to the difference between.....

Soldiers, Terrorists, Freedom Fighters........

A lot of conversation and argument is involved in the use (or miss-use) of these words. Legal discussions take place. Rabid political discussions take place. But “What’s the difference?”
Is a “soldier” a murderer? Other than the fact he/she is dressed as a particular National, and supposedly only firing at other “soldiers”; is he supposed to “kill” …. to murder? What about “collateral damage”?
What’s the difference between “killing” and “murdering”?
If a “soldier” decides to stop “killing” and holds up his hands in “surrender”; does his “murdering” suddenly stop? Is he held “accountable” for his actions just prior to “holding his hands up”? Is the fact that he is in uniform suddenly give him a certain “legal status” for his prior actions?
Boy! This already stirs up a controversy!!
Let’s continue…..

What makes a “terrorist”?
Is the fact that he/she wears no National uniform, will “eliminate” anyone (combatant or civilian), and has no National purpose make him/her a “terrorist”? Is the reason for his “mayhem” important or does any cause or purpose make him a “terrorist”? Is the fact that one of the reasons he /she doesn’t have for this mayhem is the acquisition of another’s land , make him a “terrorist”?

How does this differ from a “Freedom Fighter”?
Is the fact that a “Freedom Fighter” represents a faction in a particular land, operates his mayhem in that land, represents an opposition to the existing Government in that land, and has a cause in that land make him a “Freedom Fighter” as opposed to a simple “terrorist”? Does the “killing” or “murder” by a “Freedom Fighter” have a special legal significance as opposed to the “killing” or “murder” of a “soldier” or a “terrorist”?
Let’s continue…..

What makes a “non- combatant”?
Is the fact that a “non- combatant” wears no “uniform”, makes no attempt to “kill” or “murder” give him/her a certain legal significance? Suppose the “non-combatant” hides, supports, spies for or actively misleads for a group that is actually doing the mayhem; does this change his status or the legal significance related to his “non-combatant” status? When is a “non-combatant” actually a “non-combatant”? What is an actual definition of “combatant” or “combating”?…. Interesting point, eh? What if he/she figuratively “holds up his hands” and surrenders? Is all forgiven? What then is the legal” status?

Let’s continue……
Is “killing” or “murder” the only action that is legally recognized as “actionable”? Of course not!!! Aiding and abetting are also “actionable”! But what is the “status” of those caught in the act of “aiding and abetting”. Are they “non-combatants”…. indirect “soldiers”….. freedom fighters …. terrorists …or what?
This hue and outcry over the label and legal status of the name given to various types of people engaged in a struggle are both confusing and, sometimes, quite misleading. Is the clear definition of these words so complex that no one in authority wants to make a direct, explicit definition? Or is it “politically” awkward to commit oneself to anything clear and explicit?

Before one tries to oppose or ratify a point of view in regard to the actions or beliefs taken by any of these “words”, it would be a great idea to first announce your own personal view of these differences before starting out on any personal statements or beliefs! … (This goes for reading about these things!)