Bush's argument boiled down to this: A terrorist is a terrorist, whether he is a member of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas or of an Iraqi resistance organization fighting American troops — and, whatever their differences, they are all inflamed by the "same ideology of murder." Intended as an expression of "moral clarity," it's likely to convince many Americans. But does it hold up? Are such groups all the same, and are they actually driven by an identical ideology?
Good question.
the most widely accepted and neutral definition (of terrorism) is that it is violence against civilians to achieve political aims.
And there is your answer - with moral clarity.
Yes, you can call those that plant roadside bombs to kill troops "freedom fighters." I could even appreciate their desire not to be occupied, and admire their noble cause - even if I see them as cutting their noses off to spite their faces. But...
* Why do the "freedom fighters" hide in the homes of civilians, and in mosques? And why do they cry because their "women, children, and elderly" are subsequently in harm's way? Quick, call Aljazeera!
* Burning civilian contractors (who are there to rebuild their country), mutilating their bodies, and hanging them from a bridge in front of cheering crowds is terrorism (Fallujah). Simple...
* A cleric killing another cleric he disagrees with (al Sadr) is terrorism. It's also premeditated murder, BTW. This is a noble cause? This is the Muslim religion? This is Allah's work? Just wondering...
* Taking civilians hostage and torturing/killing/filming them is terrorism. And in my book, so is giving them an audience (the press); they become willing pawns in a devil's plan.
* Blowing yourself up in a civilian location - no matter what the cause - is terrorism. And all those associated with it - particularly those that brainwash youths into thinking they will go to a better place - are guilty, murderous scum. Associating such activity with religion is laughable to say the least. No such "religion" deserves a place in a civilized society.
To insist upon these distinctions is not to excuse the murder of civilians, which must be condemned, or to endorse the agenda of nationalist insurgencies that use "tactical terror." Rather, it is to acknowledge that terror comes in different forms, and that in order to combat it successfully, we need to know which kind we're confronting.
I'm certain these subtleties haven't escaped those who are
dealing with the problem. But what is stated in a news conference for public consumption by the average citizen is necessarily made simple.
And it really is pretty simple. Killing civilians to achieve an end (short term or with no end) is murder. It is terrorism. It needn't be made more complicated if one is looking for a call to action and a reason to stay focused on a difficult cause.
I'll admit that in my younger days, I sympathized with the IRA. That was indeed tactical terrorism. But Martin Luther King once stated that if you're going to break the law to achieve an end (civil disobedience), you have a moral obligation to accept the consequences. One must not expect sympathy when the fecal material hits the rotating propeller.
- Bill
......the ira have killed men women and children. I remmember them killing a small blonde haired boy of about 8 in Warrington, (when my son was about the same age 
)
..but I thought that I would respond anyway 
