From my POV “Terror” is something which is not defined by the persons who do it, but rather by the nature of its effect. As I mentioned earlier on, the psychological component is the primary factor.

What I am getting at her is this statement:

“there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror:”.”

Given our agreed upon defintion, what is the similarity you are referring to? Please give specifics.

I personally would (as I said) also see soldiers as victims of terror assaults, but if it makes you happy: I can live with your definition.

So what are you heading for?

I am not a US Conservative- that is only your perception. I deal with facts Matthias, and have done quite a bit of research on this topic.

“So, if the fighting individuals in Iraq attack civilians they are “terrorists”and if they attack regular soldiers they are “organized militia”?”

Not particularly, no. There are other parameters that make up an organized militia but we aren;t dealing with that definition now. We are dealing with the definitiuon of “terrorist”. That definition must include the intentional targeting of civilian objectives.

“Especially with the term “armed militia”(which reminds a little bit of that term in the Bill of Rights), I wonder why US patriots can’t see more (I wouldn’t call it “understanding”): parallels to their own history.”

The situation in Iraq is complex. There are some 400+ organizations there that involve some sort of reistance; legal, terrorist or otherwise. To place a one size fits all label on these people ais a mistake- one that I see most everyone doing.

Before we continue tho- do you recognize the definition of terrorism that I gave you and supported with various experts via the links above? here is a refresher:

The definition of terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilian objectives by a group with violence or the threat of violence in order to achieve a political or social objectives by intimidation or coercion.

So, if the fighting individuals in Iraq attack civilians they are “terrorists” and if they attack regular soldiers they are “organized militia”? Especially with the term “armed militia” (which reminds a little bit of that term in the Bill of Rights), I wonder why US patriots can’t see more (I wouldn’t call it “understanding”)… parallels to their own history.
Apart from the people, which I would perceive as real terrorists like Al Quaeda and agitators from Iran, there are probably various groups of interest who are only fighting for the interests of the majority of their people in “their” region”- folks who could be seen as organized militia.

No they aren’t nesessarily. If so, then all of those civlian insurgents that are legimately fighting for a cause
(even if we disagree) openly are also terrorist. They are not. There is a difference between an insurh=gent and a terrorist.

Per the Geneva Accords, a civilian militia who are open about their being armed that targets an occuping force that is an organized militia are not terrorist. They are targeting an organized military

“But why do you actually ask for such a (in my opinion rather nitpicking) detail?”

Because trhe target is the most important(but not the only) parameter to define terrorism.

“That a civilian who is intentionally or unintentionally severely hit by a military action won’t perceive it as some form of terror?”

Correct.

If a civilian is unintentionally hit by a military action is not the victim of terrorism. As I said the target is the most important(but not the only) parameter to define terrorism. it must be intentionally targeted.

Well, I can’t speak for other people, but if in Iraq a suicide bomber blows himself up in the proximity of regular soldiers with the intention to kill them, to me personally that’s also terrorism. But why do you actually ask for such a (in my opinion rather nitpicking) detail?

—

“That said, I completed disagree with “there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror:”.”

Where do you disagree?
That a civilian who is intentionally or unintentionally severely hit by a military action won’t perceive it as some form of terror?

No it doesn’t, and every other expert on terrorism would agree (FBI, CIA, DoD, MI6, etc, etc). An act is not one of terrorism unless the target is a civilian one. A few lay out that military target are acceptable to the definition, but only in non-military situations (when the military are technically private individuals if this is possible, such as the bombing of the USS Cole). The vast majority state specifically that civilians are the target though.

Here are the various definitions laid out for you:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Terrorism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

“I didn’t know that quote by Clausewitz yet:”

I said “Clausewitz aside”.

“So taking this definition for war and our common asumption that terrorism is also done as a (pervert) way to reach political goals, there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror:”

You are jumping ahead- we have to agree on the definition of terrorism first.

That said, I completed disagree with “there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror:”.

Terror in the sense of terrorism is also applied to military targets.
I tend to believe that terrorism is the larger scale version of figthing children and the smaller/weaker one starts scratching, spitting and pulling hair, because it sees no other way to fight/defend. The Bin Ladens in the world of terror would also like to throw laser guided bombs on their enemies or have regular uniformed armies, but as they don’t have their equivalent to that is to have fewer people doing much more horrible things. Terror works primarilly on a mental level, than a broad physical harm of the enemy.

44-
I didn’t know that quote by Clausewitz yet…
I was rather referring to “War is a continuation of politics by other means.”
So taking this definition for war and our common asumption that terrorism is also done as a (pervert) way to reach political goals, there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror…
It is in the end only the political motivation which makes the difference between “good” and “evil”- if these terms are today still 100% applicable, which I doubt.

Two other things.

1) Thank you for conitinuing the discusion as I requersted.

2) To be fair, I will answer your previous question: Clausewitz’ aside, the definition of war is legalized murder.