Originally Posted by Claudius
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.
This is dumb CG, and I understand the point you are making for argument sake,
In your argument, every country, every religion, every battle fought ever in the history of the world is a form of terrorism, and Bin Laden in no different than any of them. If you want to argue semantics thats fine, by your definition though I scare my neighbours kids at Halloween, so I am the same is Bin Laden.
Don't tell me that is a reach either, because it is exactly what you did.