the outcome of the election

[Chaerophon]

Dropping bombs in a war is an accepted convention when one is at war.

Yeah. OK, that's my point.

When one is attempting to destroy a civil society, or an emerging civil society, or to change civil society via the use of fear and terror and the threat of more, one is attempting a far different aim than simple destruction of selected targets.

You're right, the Blitz wasn't an attempt to cow Britain into submission. :rolleyes: The fact that panic was constrained and civil society structures maintained does not change the nature of the goal. And while we're at it, you're right, Russian activity in Chechnya wasn't aimed at reshaping civic goals and quelling resistance through fear.

I'm not condoning terrorism. However, my point, once again, was that bombing from the skies is not inherently more legitimate than a car bomb. Russia unjustly invaded Chechnya, massacring thousands. If the Chechen rebels let fly with a car bomb in the midst of some Russian soldiers, their act, to my mind, is legitimate. It was an act of war. Apparently the concept of 'total war' that you are so apt to draw out only has merit if it is backed up by a horde of diplomats. There is a much larger 'grey area' between 'war' and 'terrorism' than what you are letting on. I'm not about to define it - I can't define it - but I found it interesting that Ashock counted one type of attack as inherently more 'legitimate' than another. Resistance does not equate to terrorism - not even if it is not performed through unconventional means. That's all. Not a justification, not a claim that they are 'right' to do so. I only mean to point out that there are two sides to every story - in terms of legitimacy (although, you're right, perhaps not justice), Sunni insurgence is not necessarily terrorism, whether they use rocket launchers or car bombs to achieve their desired effect, as minimal as that may be.

Iraqis had their country invaded by foreigners. Those who don't like the fact have organized resistance as best they can. Classifying all resistance as inherently 'terrorist' if it resorts to unconventional methods is ridiculous. Sure, terrorist organizations are taking advantage of what has gone on in Iraq. Shame on them. However, in the eyes of many, particularly Sunni, muslims, Americans are not liberators, they are occupiers, and I cannot imagine Americans acting any differently were they invaded by an exponentially more powerful force than what they could take on through conventional means. In fact, they would probably even go after the 'replacement police' put in place to maintain the order of their occupiers.

That being said, that fact doesn't make the attacks any less tragic or the liberal notion of freedom (from my perspective) any less compelling. However, you must admit that, like it or not, these Iraqis hold a different value structures from us and, whether we think that their motives are just or not, they have a right to legitimately challenge their perceived occupiers through whatever force they can muster.

I can promise you, what is going on in the skies over Iraq today is explicit, discrete, incredibly restrained, target oriented attack.

Never said it wasn't - unfortunately, that wasn't my point.

I spent some months involved in that. Your attempt to equate legal military action, as bloody and lethal as it is, with criminal activity is not only wrong, but insulting to anyone who has served honorably under the colors -- of any nation.

Dirty pool. You must be a Republican.