How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Isn't it called "war" when one soldier kills another after war is declared?

You see, some norwegian soldier got shot in Afghanistan today. And, since we're a tiny nation, it's all over the news. And it has consistently been called a "terrorist attack", committed by "terrorists". So, as it turns out, when a soldier kills an enemy, he's a terrorist. I still don't know if a soldier is a terrorist before he kills someone though, whether it's being a soldier that makes you a terrorist, or if you only become one after your first kill. Anyone got an answer to that?



And another thing... Why are we so sad when soldiers die? I mean.... they went down there to die for their country, right? Shouldn't we be congratulating them on a job well done?

Briefly;

It is ok to target the military of another nation or group; not its civilians who are not participating in aggressive activities. Terrorism is when you attack the civilian population of a group intentionally, for the purposes of spreading fear; or destroying high profile targets like national monuments for the purposes of lowering morale. In my opinion.

Why is it sad when soldiers die? Because they don't stop being human beings when they are a soldier. And dying for their nation isn't their function; their function is to defend their nation from aggressors.

[Sarmatian]

I wouldn't call anyone who attack a soldier a terrorist. That person may or may not be a terrorist based on what his past activities, but attacking a soldier in itself isn't an act of terrorism. It's propaganda...

I remember a decade ago (it's been that long, what do you know), when nato bombed Serbia and Montenegro - few of nato (american) pilots were captured and suddenly nato was screaming about Geneva Convention and prisoners of war. What prisoners of war, what Geneva Convention? Nobody declared war on Serbia. Lawfully, those pilots were terrorist, I mean, what would you call armed force that attacks civilian targets without declaring war?

He was a soldier and he knew the risks - no matter how disgusting I find the regime in Afghanistan, Afghani still have right to defend themselves...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It can potentially be an act of terrorism, as explained above.

[Lemur]

It is ok to target the military of another nation or group; not its civilians who are not participating in aggressive activities. Terrorism is when you attack the civilian population of a group intentionally, for the purposes of spreading fear; or destroying high profile targets like national monuments for the purposes of lowering morale. In my opinion.

No, that's not your opinion, that's pretty much the textbook definition of terrorism.

[Askthepizzaguy]

No, that's not your opinion, that's pretty much the textbook definition of terrorism.

I've learned to qualify most statements I make as being "in my opinion" in the backroom so they don't come off as arrogant, and I don't have to give evidence or proof of everything I say. More out of laziness and clarity than anything else. More often than not in these backroom discussions, people challenge definitions of words; and many people have different interpretations of words, in spite of the existence of dictionaries.

To avoid quibbling over semantics and definition, I just toss an "in my opinion" after defining things.