Active Users:501 Time:02/05/2025 06:29:46 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 1789 Views
I find that unsurprising. - 01/02/2010 11:31:43 PM 474 Views
Lot of BS in there - 01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM 587 Views
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. - 01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM 538 Views
Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart. - 01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM 505 Views
I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety. - 01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM 522 Views
It's a valid complaint. *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM 202 Views
Whose complaint is valid? - 02/02/2010 01:55:58 AM 485 Views
Yours. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:15:01 AM 208 Views
I did note the rampant bias. - 01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM 598 Views
What about attacks on Iraqi police volunteers? - 01/02/2010 11:53:58 PM 497 Views
it only included attacks on American soil *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:16 PM 215 Views
Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier... - 01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM 516 Views
Ahem... /\ /\ /\ - 01/02/2010 11:56:34 PM 542 Views
Dude, 46 seconds. I was typing it while you posted. *NM* - 02/02/2010 12:05:44 AM 198 Views
True, but I was referring to attacks on US soldiers. - 02/02/2010 01:47:55 AM 496 Views
That's still a bad benchmark - 02/02/2010 10:00:23 AM 584 Views
You would be very wrong - 02/02/2010 02:11:08 PM 541 Views
Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers? - 02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM 660 Views
I would agree with this. - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM 583 Views
It was bound to happen sooner or later. - 02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM 615 Views
This is the only problem I have with "definitions" - 02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM 492 Views
You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM 482 Views
I think you missed the point. - 05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM 491 Views
One of us did. - 05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM 661 Views
I'm not talking ETHICALLY or MORALLY - 14/02/2010 06:41:32 PM 495 Views
I was, or at least speaking legally. - 15/02/2010 06:54:50 AM 555 Views
Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC - 03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM 676 Views
I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM 627 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 05/02/2010 02:22:10 AM 823 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 15/02/2010 09:46:48 AM 665 Views
Lame. - 01/02/2010 11:55:50 PM 447 Views
Demographics are the key, methinks. - 02/02/2010 12:20:46 AM 601 Views
WTF? Are these people serious? - 02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM 537 Views
Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM 199 Views
Huh? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:24 PM 217 Views
I made a survey on musicals and operas on the board! - 02/02/2010 05:15:45 PM 458 Views
I agree with tom - 02/02/2010 02:54:53 AM 496 Views
So what? - 02/02/2010 02:23:42 AM 543 Views
Waco were terrorist? Do they just make this crap up? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:00:40 PM 391 Views
leftist dhimmi allies... rofl - 04/02/2010 04:56:48 AM 482 Views

Reply to Message