[Cainehill]

Agrajag said:

No. Its the difference between (putting it in lighter terms attacking civilian targets or military targets.

No it isn't - as KissBlade said, these days it's semantics. When the USS Cole was attacked via suicide bombing off the coast of Yemen, the US Government (and a good chunk of the military) declared it an act of terrorism, despite the fact that the Cole was a military target (a destroyer).

Myself (former Marine) and some of the military I worked with disagreed with calling it terrorism - after all, suicide bombing has essentially been a part of warfare for at least 150 years - attempts with manned torpedos in the USA's "Civil War" (talk about semantics, look at the difference between what southerners call that war and what the rest of the country does, or the different names the British and Americans have for the "Revolution/War of Independence" of 1776), with explosive laden pinnaces (small boats) no doubt going back further.

Similarly - mortar attacks on US military camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism. Improvised explosive devices targetting military convoys? Terrorism. Troops not being given the armor they need and should have - terrorism. Whoops - sorry, that's our government / military screwing the troops and getting them killed, not terrorism. Point being - tactics the USA (and many other nations) have used in "legitimate" wars like WW1 and WW2 are now being called "terrorism" as a matter of politics and semantics.

The lines do get fuzzy sometimes - even against military targets, some actions might well be considered terrorism. Poisoning the food the troops are being served, or blowing up a bar full of off-duty troops (as per El Salvador). (Unless it's Halliburton poisoning the troops by serving them rotting vegetables and spoiled meat in order to increase profits - obviously this isn't terrorism.)

In Dominions terms : we have military suicide bombings, the amulet that blows up. And we have terrorism, Bane Venom charms used to poison the general population.