Active Users:252 Time:16/04/2025 11:56:12 PM
I would agree with this. Cannoli Send a noteboard - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM
Or even most. Not that it really matters, because whether you accept the labels validity or not, murdering civilians to inflict terror and motivate a favorable political response based on fear is terrorism. If you want to fight a war over politics, field an army against another and let the soldiers kill each other, but when you start going after kids and clerics it's not "guerrilla warfare" it's terrorism. The difference isn't whether the attacker wears a uniform, but whether the target does. Terrorism is only used by groups who know they can't win a standup fight, but calling American militiamen sniping redcoats from behind a tree the same as blowing up a school bus insults my intelligence as much as my country.


That is how I would parse the distinction between a "terrorist" and a "guerilla" or "freedom-fighter." Regardless of whatever method you use, from conventional weapons to WMDs to suicide bombings to IEDs, if you target military personnel and apparatus, you are the latter. If you engage civilians in order to effect a political outcome, you are a terrorist. I have zero qualms about lumping in the aerial bombing campaigns of World War Two under this heading, either, or the Viet Cong habits of attacking sympathetic civilians.

On the other hand, collateral damage among civilians in a clear attempt to target legitimate military targets or guerillas or terrorists is acceptable, within reason. Obviously, blowing up a crowded theater to get a single soldier in the audience is a bit extreme, or decimating the civilian population of a town because terrorists are known to be hiding among them.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
All Terrorists are Muslims… except the 94% that aren’t. - 01/02/2010 10:42:12 PM 1782 Views
I find that unsurprising. - 01/02/2010 11:31:43 PM 468 Views
Lot of BS in there - 01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM 581 Views
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. - 01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM 532 Views
Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart. - 01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM 497 Views
I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety. - 01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM 515 Views
It's a valid complaint. *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM 198 Views
Whose complaint is valid? - 02/02/2010 01:55:58 AM 479 Views
Yours. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:15:01 AM 204 Views
I did note the rampant bias. - 01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM 592 Views
What about attacks on Iraqi police volunteers? - 01/02/2010 11:53:58 PM 491 Views
it only included attacks on American soil *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:16 PM 211 Views
Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier... - 01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM 510 Views
Ahem... /\ /\ /\ - 01/02/2010 11:56:34 PM 537 Views
Dude, 46 seconds. I was typing it while you posted. *NM* - 02/02/2010 12:05:44 AM 195 Views
True, but I was referring to attacks on US soldiers. - 02/02/2010 01:47:55 AM 488 Views
That's still a bad benchmark - 02/02/2010 10:00:23 AM 578 Views
You would be very wrong - 02/02/2010 02:11:08 PM 535 Views
Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers? - 02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM 655 Views
I would agree with this. - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM 577 Views
It was bound to happen sooner or later. - 02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM 608 Views
This is the only problem I have with "definitions" - 02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM 485 Views
You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM 476 Views
I think you missed the point. - 05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM 484 Views
One of us did. - 05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM 654 Views
I'm not talking ETHICALLY or MORALLY - 14/02/2010 06:41:32 PM 490 Views
I was, or at least speaking legally. - 15/02/2010 06:54:50 AM 551 Views
Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC - 03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM 670 Views
I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM 621 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 05/02/2010 02:22:10 AM 817 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 15/02/2010 09:46:48 AM 660 Views
Lame. - 01/02/2010 11:55:50 PM 442 Views
Demographics are the key, methinks. - 02/02/2010 12:20:46 AM 594 Views
WTF? Are these people serious? - 02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM 530 Views
Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM 196 Views
Huh? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:24 PM 214 Views
I made a survey on musicals and operas on the board! - 02/02/2010 05:15:45 PM 452 Views
I agree with tom - 02/02/2010 02:54:53 AM 489 Views
So what? - 02/02/2010 02:23:42 AM 538 Views
Waco were terrorist? Do they just make this crap up? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:00:40 PM 388 Views
leftist dhimmi allies... rofl - 04/02/2010 04:56:48 AM 473 Views

Reply to Message