Preserving Honor: Why Terrorists Are NOT War Heroes, and their spouses are NOT War Widows
The terms “soldier,” “war hero,” “war widow,” and “terrorist” are not interchangeable. They are defined by fundamental differences in purpose, adherence to law, and the targets of their actions. To blur these lines is to dishonor true sacrifice, confuse generations, and dangerously normalize terrorism. A Soldier is not a Terrorist. A Terrorist is never a Soldier. A War Widow is not a Terrorist’s Wife & NGOs & others must refrain from using this term for wives of terrorists. These truths must never be diluted — not in the name of reconciliation, not for political convenience, and certainly not through careless language.
Who is a Soldier? Who is a Terrorist?
A soldier is a defender of the nation. He serves under the flag of a legitimate government. They serve in a country’s armed forces, uphold its constitution and laws, and defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and citizens. Their sacrifice, often of personal safety and even life, is for the greater good of peace and the protection of a democratic order. They operate under the authority of a recognized government, adhering to the strictures of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the laws of war.
The Sri Lankan Armed Forces fought to liberate the country from the LTTE—a terrorist organization banned in over 30 countries. These soldiers died to protect the nation and rescue 300,000 civilians used as human shields. Their sacrifice is the foundation of peace, making them War Heroes. A soldier becomes a War Hero by laying down their life in lawful combat to protect the nation and its people, rooted in duty, honor, and defense of democratic order.
A terrorist, in stark contrast, takes up arms against the state, deliberately kills civilians, and uses fear as a weapon to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. The defining characteristic of terrorism is the intentional targeting of unarmed non-combatants. Terrorist acts are universally considered criminal under international law, and terrorist groups operate outside state authority and the laws of armed conflict.
Unlike soldiers, Terrorists:
- Takes up arms against the state.
- Deliberately targets public spaces, leaders & unarmed non-combatants to instil fear & chaos.
- Operate outside state authority or democratic mandate.
- Violate the laws of armed conflict.
- Rejects democracy and lawful resolution.
- Commit war crimes like suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, and child recruitment.
- Commits war crimes—including suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, child recruitment, and assassinations.
- Terrorists do not defend nations; they seek to destroy them.
The LTTE assassinated leaders including a Sri Lankan President & an Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, bombed public spaces, and killed both Sinhalese , Muslims, Burghers, Foreigners and Tamil civilians. They waged war not for democracy — but to impose authoritarian rule through terror & carve a separate state which is why all pro-LTTE events abroad use the Sri Lanka map with the area they wish to call eelam highlighted.
Terrorists remain terrorists. They are only heroes to fellow terrorists.
Why a Terrorist Cannot Be a War Hero
The distinction is clear and internationally recognized:
- Targeting of Civilians: IHL strictly prohibits direct attacks on civilians. War heroes operate within legitimate military objectives, which exclude civilian populations. Terrorists intentionally target them.
- Lack of Legitimate Authority: Soldiers fight for recognized states or legitimate armed forces. Terrorists operate as non-state actors, their actions unsanctioned by international law or governments.
- Violation of IHL: Terrorists inherently violate core IHL principles such as distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality, and humanity. War heroes are celebrated for upholding these principles, not violating them.
- Nature of Conflict: While soldiers participate in armed conflict under established laws, terrorists engage in criminal acts designed to spread terror for political coercion, not conventional military objectives. The “war on terror” describes counter-terrorism efforts, not an endorsement of terrorist acts as legitimate warfare.
Why a Terrorist’s Wife cannot be a War Widow
The title of “war widow” is an honorable one, earned through profound sacrifice linked to legitimate service:
- The term “war widow” is reserved for the spouse of a war hero who died serving in the armed forces of a recognized party to an armed conflict. This implies adherence to the laws of war, clearly distinguishing it from criminal acts.
- Criminality of Actions: A terrorist’s actions are criminal, not acts of legitimate warfare. Their death, however tragic for their family, does not grant their spouse the internationally recognized status of a “war widow,” which carries specific legal and social implications tied to national service.
The Danger of Blurring These Lines
Words matter. If we allow terrorist spouses to be called “war widows,” we dangerously pave the way for extremist groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS to claim the same legitimacy. Would we accept monuments for suicide bombers? Flags for terrorist causes? Heroes out of mass killers?
If we distort these terms, we:
- Confuse our younger generations.
- Dishonor real sacrifice & demoralize members of the armed forces of a National Army.
- Normalize terrorism as “resistance” or “liberation.”
Truth must prevail. A soldier is not equal to a terrorist. A war hero cannot be compared to a suicide attacker. A war widow is not the wife of someone who killed civilians in cold blood. Sri Lanka, like all nations, must protect the dignity of its armed forces and the integrity of its history. Reconciliation must be based on truth, not false equivalence or well-funded fake propaganda
Shenali D Waduge