When does a man have right to fight without being called a Terrorist.

Terrorist is a powerful word, label placed on violence that can never be accepted in a civilize society.

It uses to be said that one man terrorist is another man freedom fighter.

American have listed dozens of organizations and labelled them as terrorist but 9/11 has changed everything, you’re either with the foreign American policy or you’re a part of the axes of evil, you’re with the terrorists.

9/11 marked a new phase in human history; the US introduced a new doctrine that aimed to eradicate anything it considered terrorism. An ideological world wind swept through the west political institution media think tanks. An attempt by neocon politician to redefine the world; they called it the global war on terror. Word used in order to escalate the conflict beyond simply the perpetrators of 9/11. The war on terror phrase was used to provide a moral basis for a conflict that have only purpose to secure western interest in the East for generations, but how does this war on terror unfold in countries where these western army are seen as the occupation.

There is no global consensus on terrorism; the pro American governments define it, as the deliberate targeting of civilians, excluding bombs dropped on population centers during war times, arguing dishonestly that the killing of civilians is never the intent in war time. For peoples being bombed, it doesn't matter if it was intended or not, action by state actor or not there is something else defined by the west as state terrorism.

Americans decide who is a terrorist and who is freedom fighter; all the government that help in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had their despot and unconstitutional rulers legitimized and turned to heroes by the west. But the resistance that wants to stop the killing, the destruction, the corruption, and the occupation are labelled terrorist.

The world nation can't agree on workable definition, as the right definition should include the terrorism caused by the west, so the difficulty that causes problem to the intellectuals and politicians, the struggle to find and graft a workable definition that won't be restricted to the west definition of terrorism. A definition restricted to the terror against the US but exclude the US terror against others.

Despite the lack of agreement within United Nations or consensus among academics and politicians; it is very easy in the US to tell who is a terrorist, they have the list. After 9/11 several groups and individuals were added to the list, individuals and groups that are heavily scrutinize. Anyone linked to these organizations was investigated, those suspected of providing funds or aids were arrested, most of the time without the necessary proof. Most of them were tortured or even killed without legal proceeding, but not on a western soil, the suspected terrorists were packed and shipped to some allies countries where torture is still a normal practice.

It seemed that terrorism according to the west definition is the only one dictating the world rules, but there is lot of inconsistency, it seems that some terrorist organizations are more accepted than others. Some listed organizations are more useful to the neocons plans than other. They're far from being investigated or persecuted, congress pass resolutions praising this groups and the CIA provide them covered funding. The enemies of my enemies are my friends even if they're on the list.

The US has constructed it first new military doctrine without a clear definition of who is the enemy. The west seems locked in a conflict based on a borderless, timeless, and unsuccessful war on terror.