How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[HoreTore]

And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country

Are you calling me patriotic?

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

Is a war declared?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Are you calling me patriotic?

Not calling you patriotic or unpatriotic; the point was you can be loyal to your peaceful convictions and not be some kind of evil subversive. Gandhi was hailed as the father of India, and I don't believe he fought anyone with violence. I admire that, even though I cannot follow his rigid brand of pacifism. I would take up arms and defend my country as long as I were within my borders, or there was a real, present danger from a military target which could be destroyed, and attempts at diplomacy have failed.

One does not necessarily have to be either a warmonger or a surrender-monkey; there is room in between. Lots of room in between. For people of many varying viewpoints, and I think most of us fall in the middle.

[Kralizec]

I agree. Terrorism may be hard to define accurately but it clearly doesn't cover attacks on military targets.

I was somewhat annoyed the other day, a Dutch soldier had just died because some Afghans had fired a rocket into the Dutch camp. Our PM called it a "cowardly" attack wich struck me as being BS rethoric.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quite simply they are terrorists, until they fight off an invasion from one of our enemies, then they are correctly identified as freedom fighters...

If only causing terror is the definition of terrorism then any army that conducts an invasion is filled with terrorists, if it is only causing terror that is terrorism then can someone explain where shock and awe differs from terrorism ?

As far as im concerned killing a foriegn soldier (who is part of an invading army) is not terrorism, they may be in the wrong and it may be a tragic loss of life but such things are not terrorism...

This is pretty dangerous you know, the Afghan may be a dirt poor, but all these red flowers you when you watch pictures from Afghanistan, what do you think that is? That would be opium, in hands of the Taliban, and for whoever they are usefull for they are sitting on the greatest opium-production of the world.

Errm didn't the Taliban all but eradicate poppy production, then when we removed the Taliban poppys spring up everywhere... you can accuse the taliban of alot of things but they were far more effective and seemed to care far more about eradicating poppys than us...

Though I wouldn't rule them out taking advantadge of poppys to fund thier way back into power, as shown by numerous examples when people think they are in the right and need something extra they are willing to abandon certain morals (America torturing for example)

All losses in war are mourned equally by me, with the exception of maybe someone like Saddam or Osama I mourn a british solidier as much as an Afghan resistance fighter...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't believe that attacking the soldiers of the opposition is an act of terrorism, regardless of the official belligerent status of the attackers. So, though it may be a tad picky, Horetore is right to disagree with calling this a "terrorist attack," even though the paper would have been perfectly correct to refer to it as an attack on those soldiers by a terrorist group (since all accounts note their use of terror tactics in other situations).

If a would-be guerilla attacks the soldiers of one of the powers that be, they may be treated as opposing soldiers or as criminals depending on the specific choice of the power in question. Insurrection may be a "right" but the government can be expected to defend itself vigorously both using the military and the "law."

The Taliban support terrorism, have made terror attacks, and, when they functioned as the ruling regime of Afghanistan, they were brutally repressive and autocratic. One thing they were NOT, however, was supportive of the growth etc. of poppies and heroin. It is possible that they are tacitly accepting these practices now as an expediency in pursuing their war to return to power, but there is little support for them to be viewed as involved in drug trafficking.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't believe that attacking the soldiers of the opposition is an act of terrorism, regardless of the official belligerent status of the attackers. So, though it may be a tad picky, Horetore is right to call this a "terrorist attack"

Wait... did I miss something?

I thought HoreTore was arguing that this wasn't a terrorist attack, and based on your statement above, wouldn't you say the same thing?

I'm confused.

Occam's razor: I screwed up. Edited it above. SF