“One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist,” is a popular statement for those interested in understanding the various perceptions of terrorism in an age dotted by groups using such techniques. In the most critical of Middle Eastern theatres, Palestine and Israel, there is a constant debate on whether terrorist techniques could be regarded as freedom fighting. The same is wondered in places like Kashmir and Afghanistan. To be effective in counterterrorism measures, a more nuanced view must be held both by the general public and officials. An in-depth understanding of the political reasons behind terrorism tactics and how to counter the freedom fighter argument is essential in drawing lines that are then enforced. The ends of an organisation must be taken out of the picture, leaving the means that they use to reach those ends as the basis they are judged by. This takes the politicisation of whatever issue the group is for or against out of the equation, thus taking opinion out and leaving facts to be heralded. The first step in this project is to accurately define what constitutes terrorism, both by states, organisations and individuals. According to Boaz Ganor, a leading intellectual on counterterrorism, definitions of what constitutes terror have been perverted by governments seeking to protect groups that they sponsor. This can be seen when Iran and Saudi Arabia try to exclude people fighting foreign occupation from terrorism. This seems just but again brings opinion into the equation, making it hard to counter terrorists. Ganor differentiates between guerilla warfare and terrorism, stating that any entity, whether it is a group, state or individual, that deliberately targets civilians is committing acts of terror, while a group that engages in guerilla warfare does so with combatants of the other side. A clear-cut definition of terrorism is required so that the fight against entities that harm innocent civilians can be united without being split or perverted by the political goals of organisations and states. If the split is made between guerilla warfare and terrorism in conflicts between states and organisations, it would be a momentous achievement for the fight against terror. International punishment of states that sponsor terrorism, according to the mentioned definition, would result in organisations choosing guerilla warfare, which is more ethically acceptable than attacking civilians. The violent conflict between states and organisations would then be separated not by ends, which are perceptively malleable, but by means, which are clearly defined. For example, attacks on military bases, such as Pathankot, would not be considered terrorism under Ganor’s definition, but rather guerilla warfare as combatants were attacked. The Mumbai attacks, though, would be considered terrorism. Attacks on innocent civilians by India in Kashmir would be considered state terror but attacks on conflicting groups within Kashmir would be considered guerilla warfare. This removes the politicisation of the Kashmir issue, both on the Pakistan and India sides, and seeks to protect civilians rather than the interests of combatants. The same definition can be used to remove the politicisation of terror in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza should be defined as terror and so should Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians. Neither Israel nor Hamas should have the audacity to define attacks on each other’s combatants as terrorism, as it is guerilla warfare. Again, a clear definition removes the politicisation of hurting innocent civilians and ends the need to argue the morality of the goals of combatants from the desire to stop terrorism. State terror occurs in three ways: state support of terrorism, state operation of terrorism and state perpetration of terrorism. State support occurs when states give terrorist organisations financial, ideological, military or operational assistance. States can also operate terrorism by performing terrorist attacks through outside groups. The third way, perpetrating terrorism, happens when a government’s official groups, such as the military or intelligence community, intentionally attack civilians. When I hear questions such as “Are the Afghan Taliban terrorists?” with the White House replying “No”, I cringe at the political perversion that does not allow us to state with clarity that, yes, a group that killed innocents in an airport is most definitely a terrorist group. When any organisation that attacks civilians is supported by a state, the state should understand that it may be supporting freedom fighters or revolutionaries, but that does not change the fact that they are still terrorists. The writer is an entrepreneur working on www.aceso.care, a healthcare startup in Lahore