It is important to point out that I do not consider ANY attacks on armed U.S. forces under combat conditions to be acts of "terrorism." "guerilla warfare" would be more accurate, and I might get some grief from my own side for making these thugs sound more "noble," but accuracy is critical here. I know a lot of people, including from the government, have been fuzzy in this area.

The bombing of the U.N. building was terrorism. The bombing of the mosque was terrorism. Trying to blow up a tank carrying uniformed soldiers in a combat zone is not.

If the Palestinians were only blowing up Israeli tanks and shooting at armed soldiers instead of blowing up buses and cafes, and shooting kids in their beds, they wouldn't be terrorists either.

That being said, it is obvious that there is nothing preventing a specific person from easily filling both roles, and most probably do. For example, an Al Quaeda member, who has and will commit acts of terrorism, could also fill the role of guerilla under certain circumstances. He is still a terrorist. A murderer does not become less a murderer because he suddenly decides to rob banks for a while instead.

Note that I don't give a rat's rump what their motivations are. Some may be defending the homeland. Some are just trying to get their totalitarian power back. Some just like killing Westerners. From the sources I have seen, an awful lot of these attackers are simply goons who are well-paid for it.

In any case, the object of the game is to get them to assume room temperature (in Iraq, that usually means warming up) as soon as possible.