Comment Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 667
A "terrorist" is anyone who employs terrorism, especially for political aims. So we look up terrorism and we get: terrorism (noun) 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
With such a nebulous definition we can classify every armed body in the history of the world as terrorists, if we accept Clausewitz' definition of war as the continuation of politics by alternate means. If you narrow it to include asymmetric "guerilla tactics" style warfare, you don't eliminate that many conflicts; WWII had the French resistance, Vietnam was basically a guerilla fight by the Vietcong, heck, Sherman's March to the Sea in the US Civil War could be considered guerilla tactics from a certain vantage point.
As best I can figure now, "terrorist" is basically a political title to signify a guerilla force with aims running counter to those of the speaker. If the guerilla force is neutral we call them "insurgents" or "militias." If we like them we call them "freedom fighters".
With such a nebulous definition we can classify every armed body in the history of the world as terrorists, if we accept Clausewitz' definition of war as the continuation of politics by alternate means. If you narrow it to include asymmetric "guerilla tactics" style warfare, you don't eliminate that many conflicts; WWII had the French resistance, Vietnam was basically a guerilla fight by the Vietcong, heck, Sherman's March to the Sea in the US Civil War could be considered guerilla tactics from a certain vantage point.
As best I can figure now, "terrorist" is basically a political title to signify a guerilla force with aims running counter to those of the speaker. If the guerilla force is neutral we call them "insurgents" or "militias." If we like them we call them "freedom fighters".