The difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism is the deliberate, nay, practically exclusive targeting of civilians.
Well, the difference is usually which side you support.
To me, the IRA are terrorist, verminous subhuman fucks deserving of complete eradication whether they target barracks, bridges, office buildings or school Remembrance Day parades. I'd shed no tears if every last one of their breed and brood were publicly disembowelled, had their reproductive organs removed with meathooks, and were then thrown into ratpits, still bleeding and partly alive. Then Sellafield waste spread over their heartlands to keep it quiet and glowing for millennia.
But I have a feeling that they don't see themselves as cowards, whatever the target. Or indeed terrorist vermin.
The see themselves as guerilla soldiers, doing whatever they can to weaken the resolve of their colonists. Attack whatever targets look weak - if they're military, so much the better, but any spectacular gets results.
(See the advantage of relativism in understanding your enemy?)
Guerillas, freedom fighters or terrorists - none have never been remarkably noticed for their sparing of 'enemy civilians', after all.
Remember, too, that al-Quaida has gone after military targets when it could reach them. That US warship? You have to work out what it is they are trying to do, and when, to combat them - not label them 'cowards' (however much it pleases your feelings or the home audience) and then say "well, they're cowards, so they'll do this, or this is how we can defeat them". |
