Quote Originally Posted by ajaxfetish View Post
This definition has three necessary conditions, shown by the use of and just before number 3, instead of the word or. Being possibly interpreted as 1 or 2 is not enough; it must be demonstrated to be 1, 2, and 3 to count as terrorism by this definition. An attack aimed exclusively at soldiers, even if committed by a terrorist, is not in itself an act of terrorism. I agree with HoreTore: it was inaccurate and possibly deceptive use of language.

Ajax
I agree that attacking soldiers is generally not terrorism. However, let us say that these soldiers are in their own nation not harming anyone, or keeping the peace between rival factions and not getting involved except to protect each from the other, or keeping free people safe from oppressive and violent regimes; these are legitimate and enlightened uses for soldiers. Those who attack such soldiers are cruel and oppressive in my opinion, if not terrorists. I'd go as far as to say they are terrorists, because those targets are not part of self-defense in my opinion.

However, peacekeeping and fighting terrorists is done by fallible human beings who make mistakes and kill the innocent at times, and therefore, armed resistance to such may or may not be terrorism. I say it depends on the circumstances.