Originally Posted by Jayhawk
I still think you are dogging my question: Exactly what would YOU call "the guys blowing shit up in Iraq? It is a total cop-out, IMO, to say it depends on their motivation. I don't give a damn what the motivation of guys blowing up US soldiers in Iraq might be--they are fucking TERRORISTS! By any damn definition...
I fully understand what you are saying. An example. In the US Civil War, neither the soldiers, civilians or foreign fighters [from either side] would be considered a terrorist even in today's terms.
The same with the Revolutionary War. Neither our guys [not an organized Army in many areas], the Brits, the French, Germans or any other fighters would be considered TERRORISTS. They blew stuff up, killed folks and were every bit as mean and nasty as today's fighters are but, they were doing so in the confines of a WARZONE. Just like Iraq.
I am not dodging your question, or dogging you for that matter, I answered the question. The guys blowing shit up are Insurgents, partisans, warriors, soldiers, mean shits, Freedom Fighters, religious zealots. They are a lot of things but they don't meet any definition of terrorist. That is a spin word in the context of Iraq. [caveat: it can be said that terror cells are forming in Iraq but for them to BE terrorists, they would have to ply their wares in unsuspected places, and there are not unsuspected places in Iraq. It is a WARZONE]
Oklahoma City=Terrorist act
NYC 9/11+Terrorist act
British Subway Bombing=Terrorist act
Bombing in Sarajevo in 1995 NOT Terrorist act
Bombing of Mosque in Basra NOT Terrorist act
Bombing in Kabul 2006 NOT a Terrorist act
The differences are that the first three were in unexpected situations, without a preconceived expectation of violence and "terror".
The last three were events that all took place within the confines of war, by warring factions in places and times that there could be a reasonable expectation that violence would exist.