Active Users:2690 Time:19/06/2026 11:43:18 AM
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 2039 Views
I find that unsurprising. - 01/02/2010 11:31:43 PM 688 Views
Lot of BS in there - 01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM 803 Views
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. - 01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM 739 Views
Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart. - 01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM 706 Views
I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety. - 01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM 724 Views
It's a valid complaint. *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM 290 Views
Whose complaint is valid? - 02/02/2010 01:55:58 AM 690 Views
Yours. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:15:01 AM 309 Views
I did note the rampant bias. - 01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM 821 Views
What about attacks on Iraqi police volunteers? - 01/02/2010 11:53:58 PM 706 Views
it only included attacks on American soil *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:16 PM 318 Views
Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier... - 01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM 742 Views
Ahem... /\ /\ /\ - 01/02/2010 11:56:34 PM 750 Views
Dude, 46 seconds. I was typing it while you posted. *NM* - 02/02/2010 12:05:44 AM 296 Views
True, but I was referring to attacks on US soldiers. - 02/02/2010 01:47:55 AM 702 Views
That's still a bad benchmark - 02/02/2010 10:00:23 AM 813 Views
You would be very wrong - 02/02/2010 02:11:08 PM 758 Views
Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers? - 02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM 879 Views
I would agree with this. - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM 798 Views
It was bound to happen sooner or later. - 02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM 837 Views
This is the only problem I have with "definitions" - 02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM 714 Views
You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM 707 Views
I think you missed the point. - 05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM 706 Views
One of us did. - 05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM 889 Views
I'm not talking ETHICALLY or MORALLY - 14/02/2010 06:41:32 PM 713 Views
I was, or at least speaking legally. - 15/02/2010 06:54:50 AM 760 Views
Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC - 03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM 944 Views
I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM 856 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 05/02/2010 02:22:10 AM 1049 Views
Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. - 15/02/2010 09:46:48 AM 888 Views
Lame. - 01/02/2010 11:55:50 PM 650 Views
Demographics are the key, methinks. - 02/02/2010 12:20:46 AM 816 Views
WTF? Are these people serious? - 02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM 727 Views
Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM 299 Views
Huh? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:03:24 PM 310 Views
I made a survey on musicals and operas on the board! - 02/02/2010 05:15:45 PM 660 Views
I agree with tom - 02/02/2010 02:54:53 AM 722 Views
So what? - 02/02/2010 02:23:42 AM 760 Views
Waco were terrorist? Do they just make this crap up? *NM* - 02/02/2010 02:00:40 PM 496 Views
leftist dhimmi allies... rofl - 04/02/2010 04:56:48 AM 714 Views

Reply to Message