I don't agree though, that you can make a clean break in the case of Iraq. The groups that are attacking the US are the same groups that are killing Iraqi civilians, beheading journalists, and blowing up police stations. A bomb that kills 10 Iraqi civilians, and 1 US soldier....is considered "acceptable loss" by these groups.
On a side note, it's kind of a shame that this Iraq mess seems to be overshadowing some amazing developments in Afghanistan.
----- Original Message -----
From: Marlon Moyer
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the Iraq War
I think the winner/loser slant is really what defines terrorism.
Afterall, George Washington and his army fighting for self defense,
their motive was purely political. They didn't stick to fighting the
traditional/British way but chose to adopt Indian strategies. If we
accept Gruss's definition, we become a nation founded on terrorism.
Regardless, I think that the parts of the insurgency that are
attacking only military targets and not civilians are not terrorists.
The part that is attacking civilians would be considered terrorists by
me.
<snip>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
