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!
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
All Terrorists are Muslims… except the 94% that aren’t.
01/02/2010 10:42:12 PM
- 1820 Views
Lot of BS in there
01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM
- 614 Views
I'm afraid I have to agree with this.
01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM
- 563 Views
Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart.
01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM
- 530 Views
I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety.
01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM
- 547 Views
It's a valid complaint. *NM*
02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM
- 208 Views
I did note the rampant bias.
01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM
- 621 Views

Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier...
01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM
- 543 Views
Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers?
02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM
- 683 Views
I would agree with this.
02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM
- 607 Views
It was bound to happen sooner or later.
02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM
- 643 Views

This is the only problem I have with "definitions"
02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM
- 516 Views
You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe.
03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM
- 508 Views
I think you missed the point.
05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM
- 515 Views
One of us did.
05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM
- 691 Views

Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC
03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM
- 698 Views
I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason.
03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM
- 655 Views
WTF? Are these people serious?
02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM
- 563 Views
Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM*
02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM
- 206 Views
So I presume the article meant to highlight that Muslim American citizens aren't all that violent?
03/02/2010 04:17:06 AM
- 592 Views
How many other attacks killed almost 3,000 people of over 90 different nations?
03/02/2010 06:26:23 AM
- 604 Views