Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?

My definition is a bit simpler.
Tom Brosz — (archived)

A terrorist uses fear and violence against unarmed civilians that have no connection to any military effort. Their targeting of non-combatants is deliberate, precise, and planned, and is not the same as collateral damage, for example, damage to a school during a bombing of a munitions factory nearby.

Someone attacking armed military forces, even using unconventional techniques, would be more under the definition of "guerrilla." A bomb under a road specifically targeted for an Abrams tank or troop transport is nasty, but a legitimate act of war.

To be honest, I have probably been less than careful about these distinctions in a number of my own posts, but that doesn't make the distinction invalid.

On the other hand, the lines are blurred in real life. I have no doubt that many of the same people setting bombs under military transports have set bombs under taxis on city streets, and that many of the same people firing guns at our troops have also participated in the murder of civilian hostages and torture of fellow Iraqis.

American-centric? As opposed to what? Walking in the shoes of someone who puts a bullet through the head of a CARE worker? Who puts bombs in ambulances and the corpses of infants? Who kills ellow Iraqis indiscriminately, and bomb churches and religious gatherings? What do I have to learn from such people?

Again, all nitpicking aside, which side do you want to win?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)