One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It depends on what side you are on.

The problem with that, is that yes it can to some... But not to others. So how do you fight fair? Like Lewis Farrakhan said... "By any means necessary." That implies a lot without saying very much at all. So... I suppose we often have to utilize counter tactics that only seem wrong... But what else can you do to fight lawlessness?

when the brits aligned themselves with the indians to sneak up on and kill rebellious colonists, when the american revolutionary soldiers used non- european- traditional - stay behind the trees and sneak up on the redcoats methods, when the civilians threatened by an evil formerly supported us dictatorship in nicaragua needed our help - we even traded with iran - our UN soul mate in the late 70s and early 80s, before israel had secured military and intelligence supremacy in the middle east (and arguably, throughout much of the world), it, too, resorted to unconventional, terroristic tactics, such as begen's participation in blowing up the king david hotel. each of these acts has been seen as noble by the side fighting and terroristic by the other side. now that there exists so much technology so that advanced nations don't need to, "see the whites of their eyes" - massive killing - strategical strikes - can occur without guilt. is this not terrorism, too? i see little difference between strapping a weapon to your chest to explode it around 100 market shoppers and firing a dozen missiles from appache helicopters into targets, killing dozens of innocent civilians. the only difference is access to technology OR who wins the fight in the end. some famous person said that "violence is the voice of the oppressed". if that's true, and we listen to the oppressed, not necessarily agreeing with them but showing them respect, perhaps we might have less strife.

I see a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism. The distinction being: terrorism is meant to simply terrify, guerilla warfare, is to weaken a stronger foe through hit and run tactics, things like that. An example of terrorism would be kidnapping civilians or...flying passenger planes into tall office buildings. I see the former as a more legitimate means then the latter, in which it is not at all legal or fair. The term “Asymmetric warfare” is where I see a blur. Either, I think, might be applied to that. Asymmetric isn’t really fair, but that term could mean cyberwar too, which could be terrorism, see the movie “Live Free or Die Hard”, or cyberwar, in this case of asymmetric warfare could mean jamming all lines of communication and access of information for the enemy. So…not really

No, it's the work of cowards yo...

Guerilla warfare, possibly-providing the cause is righteous. Terrorism, no.

Depends on who you're talking to. The US government calls the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine a terrorist organisation, but has no problem using 'soft targets' or white phosphorous in Iraq, or launching a major terrorist campaign against Cuba (which they've been doing since JFK).

As the saying goes, "all's fair in love and war." It used to be that war was reasonably civilised - either one side's champion would fight the other side's champion, and only one person got killed, or only the soldiers got killed. However WW2 changed all that, with civilians being killed too, so for me, that was the beginning of warfare that was no longer "legitimate", whatever that means in this context. Terrorism is just another way for people to fight their enemy in a way that involves people who should not and do not want to be involved.

No. but warfare itself is not legitimate any longer. The word "terrorism" is a western word and a fearmongering replacement for what it is, which is aggresive "Resistance".

It depends, but I would have to give a conditional YES. One could make the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism. We deliberately targeted civilians in an attempt to terrify the people and the government of Japan into surrendering. However, those were also calculated attacks. Fewer people were killed than would have been had the war dragged on. The Calculus of Death is never pretty, but sometime it is necessary. A large part of it depends on how militant the civilian populace is. If there are many insurgents, sometimes the best way to end a conflict is to raise the stakes so high that the opposition backs down due to an unwillingness to pay the high price of victory. However, that also depends on the culture. Sometimes terrorism just pisses your enemy off. The reason terrorism isn't a valid means of warfare against America is our ability and willingness to just bomb nine flavors of dog crap out of anybody who threatens us. Terrorism also doesn't work well against a population willing to martyr themselves. That is why we failed in Vietnam and why Iraq is so difficult. While not everyone is willing to die for a shot at hurting us, enough are that it makes conventional warfare practically impossible. The line between guerrilla warfare with collateral damage and terrorism is *very* thin.

Of course it can be. It always has been. Terrorism is not new. And what we consider terrorists, others consider freedom fighters. I am not condoning the killing of innocent civilians, but it is not going to disappear just because we don't like it. We have to get to the heart of why people are willing to blow up people seemingly not involved in the conflict to obtain their desired end. And we might find out, in the end, that their definition of "innocent civilian" is not the same as ours. To us, it is a bystander. To them, it is anyone not committed to their cause.

I would have to say that terrorism is certainly considered as being a serious possibility of hostile engagement for an army. Material and supportive equipment can not be moved successfully in an occupied zone unless the elements of terrorism are handled expediently. Such expediency requires more protective garb for the army and it also requires more protective strikes against the terrorists. I would have to say that terrorism is definitely a legitimate type of warfare because an embedded faction of an engaged enemy may be resorting to terrorism in order to prolong hostilities during a war.

Yeah. As legitimate as the compliancy of people attained through bullying.

That would depend on who you are talking to. One mans Insurgent is another mans Freedom Fighter. That is to say... If armed foreign troops are in the street outside my front door...

Yes, because terrorism and war are intertwined philosophies, and civilians have been victims of war for countless generations. Starvation, water deprivation and more aggressive tactics like fire-bombing and the tossing of decaying animal remains into besieged towns might well be regarded as acts of terrorism. Unfortunately the list of atrocities committed in times of war is as endless as human imagination.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. When the settlers were murdering Native Americans right and left, the Natives fought back but were labeled terrorists (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the term wasn't coined till much recently but the gist is there). However, when the settlers themselves turned into England, they became the terrorists. Now, hundreds of years later when they are invading a foreign country, destroying it and murdering its women and children, they're saviors but when the natives retaliate, then they're terrorists. So, in short, it's a convenient thing, which flips flaps at the convenience of the one holding the bigger gun, a term used to define any act of self-defense and a good way to manipulate the masses thru fear

To me, warfare is the embodiment of terrorism; how can you engage in a war against another country without instilling fear and intimidation in its people? How can a war be fought in a way that innocent civillians are not being maimed or killed? . Can any warfare ever be non-terrorist in nature? I do not believe so.

Since Terrorism is in th eye of the beholder, one would need hard and fast definitions of what Terrorism is that everyone could agree on. Also included in this would be just who defines what is legitimate and what is not. Based on our(the West) take, no, terrorism is not a legitimate form of warfare. But I have a problem with this notion. I don't consider warfare in terms of legitimacy. War is waged to gain an objective. Just because one country considers invading another country as a legitimate use of their military does not mean the country being invaded sees it that way. Terrorism and Legitimate are both words that are popular to use but do nothing but rationalize specific actions by specific groups.