[Agrajag]

KissBlade said:
Actually I don't know any arabic countries that openly condones terrorism so I'm not even sure which ones you're referring to here. The only ones that I can even guess at are the ones the media CLAIMS openly condones terrorism.

Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?
Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)

As for difference between attacking civilian targets and military targets. US bombs factories and plants that they claim are producing weapons, etc. Where do you draw the line?

I'd say right there is where I draw the line. Destroying military resources (IE Factories) is borderline. Exploding in a bus and killing many civilians, is definitely terrorism.

Second, even if I dub "terrorism" as "freedom fighting", how does that in anyway support it?

Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.

And second, may I point out, I called it simply a reason. I am not choosing to sway it into the ambigious area of "good" or "bad". YOU were the one who first dubbed it officially as a "bad" reason. Not I.

Fine then, if you want to argue semantics... You called it a reason, while I disagree and think its not a reason at all.
Happy now?

Cainehill said:

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).

Well, I don't call that an act of terrorism.

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.

Like I said, I wouldn't call that terrorism, just like I wouldn't call Kamikaze terrorism. But the examples you gave are of attacking military targets anyway...

Similarly - mortar attacks on US military camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism.

Like I previously said, I wouldn't call that terrorism.

Improvised explosive devices targetting military convoys? Terrorism.

Nor that.

Troops not being given the armor they need and should have - terrorism.

Sorry, what are you refering to here? (I'm asking this seriously, I don't know about what you are talking)

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.

And? All you're saying is that the term is wrongly invoked as a political move.

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

I wouldn't call that terrorism either.


As for dominion-terms, Berserk seems like an awfuly suicidle spell. If Im not confusing spells, then Pheonix Pyre is pretty suicidale as well!