Active Users:947 Time:03/05/2026 05:47:33 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 2008 Views
I find that unsurprising. - 01/02/2010 11:31:43 PM 660 Views
Lot of BS in there - 01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM 777 Views
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. - 01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM 711 Views
Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart. - 01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM 676 Views
I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety. - 01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM 700 Views
It's a valid complaint. *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM 271 Views
Whose complaint is valid? - 02/02/2010 01:55:58 AM 663 Views
Yours. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:15:01 AM 290 Views
I did note the rampant bias. - 01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM 792 Views
What about attacks on Iraqi police volunteers? - 01/02/2010 11:53:58 PM 684 Views
it only included attacks on American soil *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:16 PM 302 Views
Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier... - 01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM 718 Views
Ahem... /\ /\ /\ - 01/02/2010 11:56:34 PM 730 Views
Dude, 46 seconds. I was typing it while you posted. *NM* - 02/02/2010 12:05:44 AM 277 Views
True, but I was referring to attacks on US soldiers. - 02/02/2010 01:47:55 AM 676 Views
That's still a bad benchmark - 02/02/2010 10:00:23 AM 787 Views
You would be very wrong - 02/02/2010 02:11:08 PM 734 Views
Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers? - 02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM 853 Views
I would agree with this. - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM 771 Views
It was bound to happen sooner or later. - 02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM 815 Views
This is the only problem I have with "definitions" - 02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM 690 Views
You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM 682 Views
I think you missed the point. - 05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM 679 Views
One of us did. - 05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM 861 Views
I'm not talking ETHICALLY or MORALLY - 14/02/2010 06:41:32 PM 686 Views
I was, or at least speaking legally. - 15/02/2010 06:54:50 AM 733 Views
Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC - 03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM 916 Views
I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM 832 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 05/02/2010 02:22:10 AM 1020 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 15/02/2010 09:46:48 AM 855 Views
Lame. - 01/02/2010 11:55:50 PM 628 Views
Demographics are the key, methinks. - 02/02/2010 12:20:46 AM 788 Views
WTF? Are these people serious? - 02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM 698 Views
Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM 282 Views
Huh? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:24 PM 292 Views
I made a survey on musicals and operas on the board! - 02/02/2010 05:15:45 PM 637 Views
I agree with tom - 02/02/2010 02:54:53 AM 700 Views
So what? - 02/02/2010 02:23:42 AM 734 Views
Waco were terrorist? Do they just make this crap up? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:00:40 PM 476 Views
leftist dhimmi allies... rofl - 04/02/2010 04:56:48 AM 685 Views

Reply to Message