What I read about this topic was at least two years ago. I don't keep any files on such stuff.
Likewise - hence why I'm unsure about which terrorist Abu sought hospital treatment.
As far as definitions go, I suppose I work on a few precepts:
- if you and they are wearing uniforms, and you're representing official bodies declared at war, you're soldiers
- if you're solely targeting foreign troops occupying your own country, you're a freedom fighter
- if you're also attacking local forces who are in support of foreign occupiers, you're probably best defined as a resistance fighter
- if you're hitting your own civilians who aren't specifically working with the occupiers, you're a terrorist
- if you're targeting (or completely not caring about) non-para/military casualties, you're a terrorist
- if you wear a uniform, then as well as any of the above you're a guerilla fighter
BUT
- if the occupier has won possession and been there for two local generations or more, they've got a pretty good claim anyway based on the facts regardless of your preferences.
- if the occupier has run the place for over 100 years, they should have to be *seriously* foreign for you to claim :)
And I don't claim those are complete or exclusive but it's not too hard to map most conflicts against one or more.
DO feel free to amuse yourself by comparing and contrasting, say, the UK, French or indeed Norwegian claims to much of the USA :) - remembering the native Americans were there long before... |
