Quote Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
Quote Originally Posted by War Angel
If only it were that simple.
Oh, but it is. We're talking semantics here - and terrorist has a very distinct meaning. It's not a buzz-word. When a freedom-fighter only kills military targets, he's a guerilla fighter. If he kills civilians, he's a terrorist. Simple as that.
I repeat, name me on armed force that hasn't killed innocents, either directly or indirectly. Don't use the 'they deliberately target civilians' card as many MANY of the world's powers have deliberately done that, masked or openly.

Like I say, it's only that simple if it's convenient for your viewpoint. It's a mass of grey if you're honest.

Just yesterday the 'legal' protestant ornagemen started riots all over Northern Ireland because they weren't allowed to march down Catholic streets. Let me put this into perspective for you. It's a Protestant March comemorating their defeat of King James' catholic Monarchy in 1690 and is openly anti-Catholic. It's like the KKK marching through Harlem or the PLO through Tel Aviv. It's reasons like this the IRA were formed. The roads are blocked, houses set alight, people shot & as a Catholic I'm pretty much housebound until it's over. Everyone bangs on & on about the IRA. No one mentions the beasts on the other side.
I'm not sure I can. I haven't bothered to keep track of every military action in history. Tell me though, how many military forces make it a policy that targeting innocents is the correct thing to do? Apart for some extreme total war situations, such as World War II, where everyone was supporting the war effort, which means that there were no civilians, militaries agree that targeting civilians is off-limits. If a single military commander does so, that is his actions, and those of the people serving under him, not the actions of the military force as a whole, and he will probably be brought up on charges of war crimes when his superiors find out. The military universally condemns the slaughter of innocents, while terrorists seem to think that it is the right thing to do.

And, yes, specifically targeting them as opposed to having some die with collateral damage does matter. You're saying that ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidently hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country? You must have the most screwed up set of morals since the terrorists themselves.