What is terrorism? Terrorism is not related to form. It is related to the initiation of force. Only those that undertsand the right of an individual to their life will grasp this. Totalitarian countries such as Syria cannot.

Whoever initiates force, not only violent force is responsible and depending on the method can be accused of terrorism.

The poster was missing an important word: intentionally. It's "intentionally" killing children, destroying hospitals,ect...

Accidents don't count-- even in war time. Accidents happen; non combatants get in the way. War is organized chaos; soldiers are there to break things because if they do enough damage then the regime sues for peace.

All war was terrorism four hundred years ago. Then, the West created civilized rules for combatants. Those people who refuse to obey the rules are terrorist irrespective of the form their acts take.

Get this; terrorism is the difference between civilized and uncivilized warfare. Saddam fought an uncivilized war. So do the Palestinians. Terrorists don't deserve to breathe; break the rules of civilized combat and America will make sure you don't.

Terrorism has nothing to do with intentionally killing civilians. War is between nations not armies.

If intentionally bombing civilian areas of those who initiated force is required to shorten a war or protect the lives of soldiers or civilians of the defending country then it is immoral not to do so. Any civilian casualties is the responsibility of the side that initiated force.

The United States by the way had no qualms [and rightly so] about bombing villages in Afghanistan, calling those civilian casualties "collateral damage".

I refer to my original comment above.

Whoever came up with a "civilized" form of war [so-called] is someone who subscribes to the immoral practice of self-sacrifice.

"If intentionally bombing civilian areas of those who initiated force is required to shorten a war or protect the lives of soldiers or civilians of the defending country then it is immoral not to do so. Any civilian casualties is the responsibility of the side that initiated force."

Osama couldn't have said it better. If blowing up the WTC would cause the U.S. to retreat from the M.E. and stop sanctions against the Iraqi people then it was just to do so. According to your logic, he was wrong not in his morality but simply his ability to predict the consequences of his actions.

Don't get me wrong...I would never defend Saddam's actions. But then I never advocate intentionally targeting civilians.

>>Osama couldn't have said it better. If blowing up the WTC would cause the U.S. to retreat from the M.E. and stop sanctions against the Iraqi people then it was just to do so. According to your logic, he was wrong not in his morality but simply his ability to predict the consequences of his actions.>>

Osama Ben Laden is wrong in his morality, because he is irrational to begin with. He initiated force. Not the United States. Therefore he is the immoral one. If Ben Laden came from a country also with WTC buildings then America would have been fully entitled to destroy them in return. The responsibility would be Ben Laden's.

>>Don't get me wrong...I would never defend Saddam's actions. But then I never advocate intentionally targeting civilians.>>

So you would risk American soldiers lives to protect enemy civilians? That is immoral. Want to hear soldiers comments about that little political decision? I suggest tuning in to the BBC Radio where it appears American Marines are more willing to voice their opinions.