[Some1]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.

To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.

---

But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics .

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)

But my point is as Primitive already said:

It's all a matter of perspective.

We all agree that people who excecute, torture etc. Can be considered war criminals..
But what is the divinition of people? Al Aqaida people on Cuba? I think they are not handled that well.... in that light, maybe next year when "we" have a new US president, we can accuse Bush of War-criminal acts.... and put him in jail, with Saddam in one cell.

R.

[ March 31, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Some1 ]