Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
I don't think the targeting civilians is a valid definition for terrorists. And here is why. Let's take a school yard analagy. If some 90 pound weakling is being picked on by a 200 pound bully is it not fair for the weakling to kick the bully in the balls to defend himself? Even though kicking in the balls is considered "unfair" by the bully?
My point is this the US has very few if any soft targets. We out gun and outman any other force on the planet. If we make rules that are advantageous to us we have to expect people to not follow them. It is easy for us to say "don't kill civilians" because we have the ability to do damage without targeting them. We backed a weaker force into a corner we should expect them to fight any way they can to survive. Am I justifying targeting civilians? No, but targeting them alone does not make them terrorists. We have left them with no other options.
I think a better definition of terrorist needs to include something about being unprovoked.
|
I agree that targeting citizens is not the whole and necessary meaning, but they are targeted. You can't take them out of the equasion, whether the fight is fair or not.
Actuality, fairness is in the eye of the beholder (IMO). One might say that the 'terrorist' groups that America has chosen to take on have an advantage over us. They do not have to follow the same rules we do because they don't have the foreign relations to keep up and treaties that need mutual trust (i.e. if we don't follow them, our allies don't and we are in deep crap). I've never seen an official misson where an army officer straps a bomb to his chest and runs into a group of terrorists. It's relative.