It's very important to distinguish propaganda from fact. It is indeed convenient to lable people you don't like "terrorist" - the Germans did that with the French resistance - but fortunately there are generally accepted definitions of that term against which propaganda labels can be tested, if you care to...
Terrorism has nothing to do with irregular warfare, or what you call "not playing fair." It concerns chiefly the choice of target and the ultimate result desired. A warrior - whether guerrillero, résistant or regular - attacks his adversary directly and seeks to damage him, preferably enough to take him out of action. A terrorist attacks a target conveniently designated by him as SYMBOLIC of his chosen adversary; the target is preferably unsuspecting and undefended. The ultimate purpose is to frighten his adversary, or somebody with influence on that adversary, into harming himself. In the case of most current terrorist organizations, the target is liberal western republics, and the aim is to instill fear that will be manifest in repression that will in effect dismantle the freedom that the terrorists hate. Marc de Piolenc Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: > > At 02:59 PM 4/6/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > >Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and > >risistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. > > "Terrorist" is what the bigger side of an asymmetrical conflict > call the smaller side. Also "crazy", and other intended-derogatory > labels.
