Active Users:1382 Time:23/12/2025 04:33:48 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
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
Reply to message
All Terrorists are Muslims… except the 94% that aren’t. - 01/02/2010 10:42:12 PM 1920 Views
I find that unsurprising. - 01/02/2010 11:31:43 PM 589 Views
Lot of BS in there - 01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM 710 Views
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. - 01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM 649 Views
Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart. - 01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM 609 Views
I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety. - 01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM 633 Views
It's a valid complaint. *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM 242 Views
Whose complaint is valid? - 02/02/2010 01:55:58 AM 599 Views
Yours. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:15:01 AM 264 Views
I did note the rampant bias. - 01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM 721 Views
What about attacks on Iraqi police volunteers? - 01/02/2010 11:53:58 PM 614 Views
it only included attacks on American soil *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:16 PM 268 Views
Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier... - 01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM 645 Views
Ahem... /\ /\ /\ - 01/02/2010 11:56:34 PM 669 Views
Dude, 46 seconds. I was typing it while you posted. *NM* - 02/02/2010 12:05:44 AM 245 Views
True, but I was referring to attacks on US soldiers. - 02/02/2010 01:47:55 AM 606 Views
That's still a bad benchmark - 02/02/2010 10:00:23 AM 720 Views
You would be very wrong - 02/02/2010 02:11:08 PM 656 Views
Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers? - 02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM 776 Views
I would agree with this. - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM 695 Views
It was bound to happen sooner or later. - 02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM 739 Views
This is the only problem I have with "definitions" - 02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM 621 Views
You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM 613 Views
I think you missed the point. - 05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM 611 Views
One of us did. - 05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM 790 Views
I'm not talking ETHICALLY or MORALLY - 14/02/2010 06:41:32 PM 619 Views
I was, or at least speaking legally. - 15/02/2010 06:54:50 AM 671 Views
Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC - 03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM 807 Views
I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM 762 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 05/02/2010 02:22:10 AM 950 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 15/02/2010 09:46:48 AM 777 Views
Lame. - 01/02/2010 11:55:50 PM 563 Views
Demographics are the key, methinks. - 02/02/2010 12:20:46 AM 715 Views
WTF? Are these people serious? - 02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM 642 Views
Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM 256 Views
Huh? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:24 PM 266 Views
I made a survey on musicals and operas on the board! - 02/02/2010 05:15:45 PM 576 Views
I agree with tom - 02/02/2010 02:54:53 AM 627 Views
So what? - 02/02/2010 02:23:42 AM 657 Views
Waco were terrorist? Do they just make this crap up? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:00:40 PM 453 Views
leftist dhimmi allies... rofl - 04/02/2010 04:56:48 AM 610 Views

Reply to Message