Originally Posted by Benzo
The difference for me and this is really just my opinion.
A "terrorist" fights his battles (war) with no consideration of civilian casualties, in some cases pick their targets to maximize them 9/11, UK, Spain. Causing "terror" among the masses.
Say what you want about the USA, and there wherefores and whys, they attempt to minimize as many civilian casualties as possible. It becomes a military action with strategic military targets, right or wrong, which is why the group we are discussing has been hiding amongst them.
It is not an Arab thing for sure, IRA, T.Macveigh etc... terrorists, no consideration for civilian life.
So how do you explain the firebombings of Dresden during WWII? The Tokyo Air Raids? The second nuclear explosion on Nagasaki? All during WWII and all specifically targeted civilians so as to cripple the resolve of the enemy? By definition they would be terrorist attacks? Nagasaki was at no point really considered a military target of importance and much of the historical records points to dropping the second as a show of:
a. force to the soviets
b. payback for Pear Harbour
And how do you measure terrorism? Does the soldier who raids a home of innocent people and threaten them, when they're in a state of panic, constitute terrorism? To the victim, I'm sure it does (and yes it does happen, mostly due to faulty intelligence, but I digress).
Oh and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the use of Agent Orange on civilian populations? There was no though of minimizing civilian casualties there. Civilians were purposefully targeted so as to simply break the resolve of the enemy.