There seems to be some confusion

[Professur]

I didn't say they targetted civilians, anywhere. That falls under your definition of terrorism, not mine. I explained my above. Terrorism is a method of unconventional warfare. Since the unconventional become conventional when it becomes commonplace, that definition must change with time, no? Can you honestly say that what Washington did was anything less when viewed from British eyes at the time?

Involving ununiformed combatents. Targets are unchanged from WWII's definition. Anything supporting the enemy's ablility to wage war. Like it or lump it, that's today's reality.

BTW, I seem to recall something about british sympathizers running for their lives. Now where was it they went? Oh yeah, CANADA!!!


After reading the above, I wish to recant and appologize for singling out Washington. As a general, he stood at the head (or behind) of his troops. But his troops ... they were engaging in terroristic activity. Similarly, Bin Laden didn't personally attack the WTC. But as the leader of the people who did, ...


Ah, frig it.

 

[freako104]

Eric, if Al Qaeda, et. al. were to win, you'd be one of the first they would kill off, because of your "freak" nature.

That, and because you stuck your foot in your mouth again by saying the Muslims don't have their holy land, completely forgetting about a little place called Mecca.

Israel is another piece of Holy Land. you realise they wouldnt kill me cause of my nature but because I am not Muslim.

 

[Professur]

BTW, just who was the IRA targetting here or here?

To date, the IRA leadership has not claimed responsibility nor issued a statement.

Copycat? Some punk kid? Some breakaway group?

And from that article, I see that warnings were given, and the area under evacuation. That's not exactly targetting civilians.