"One Man's Terrorist is another's..."

I'm sorry, but reasonable and moral people can easily tell the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

This kind of lazy, cliche-ridden thinking is one of the big problems with the left's attempts at discussing foreign policy. Mostly because the cliches and recieved wisdom are manifestly false (as in the case of the "one man's terrorist..." canard).

The recieved wisdom that "we armed Saddam" is false, in the sense that the US or the UK armed Saddam. Russia provided over half the weapons that Saddam bought since 1973, followed by France.

By comparison, Brazil sold more weapons to Iraq than the US and UK combined.

Also on the hit parade is the bleat "well, we supported bad guys in the past!" (and thus, presumably, are forever enjoined from doing the right thing in the future), which, of course, conveniently leaves out the most important context of the past 60 years, which was the Cold War.

Most of the "we supported bad people!" examples come straight from the headlines of the Cold War and from the exigencies of the cold war. Prior to WWII (in the 20th century), the US was primarily in the process of ridding itself of imperial possessions, and practicing "dollar diplomacy" in Latin America instead of military interventions. After WWII, we had to fight socialist (well, communist, but the difference is one of degree, not substance) terror and aggression throughout the world. Most times there were not good choices to make, only bad or worse ones. We made some of teh worse ones from time to time (the Shah of Iran comes to mind), but the general thrust of the "America's hands aren't clean! unclean!!" argument is that since the US was forced to deal with lesser devils to prevent a greater catastrophe, that the US is inherently evil (i.e., America would have done what it did in the past 60 years even without a Soviet threat).

That is nonsense.

If the US made bad decisions and created problems in the world, then its all the more incumbent upon the US to FIX those problems, rather than wring our hands and let the dictator continue to a) threaten the US and b) brutalize his people. The argument of "dirty hands" for the US is an argument FOR war, not either an indictment of the US, the current administration, or lesser yet an argument against war.

Share this

Do you agree that One man's

Do you agree that One man's terrorist is another one mans freedom fighter?

Of course not. Terror is

Of course not. Terror is terror, regardless of your professed "greater motives".

Yes I do...we as Americans

Yes I do...we as Americans were once terrorists ourselves. We must remember the Boston Tea Party or even the Revolutionary War itself. You see, terrorist is a label that only a country can use on those causing harm to their state/cause. The British called us Terrorist and reffered to the war with us as a Civil War. So yes, one man's Terrorist IS another man's freedom fighter. Unfortunately were dealing with terms, words, and definitions. To understand this concept we must see past the actual meaning of the word and understand the situation and the cause of which they are labeled terrorist.