> A warrior - whether guerrillero, risistant or regular - attacks his > adversary directly and seeks to damage him, preferably enough to take > him out of action.
Apparently you assume that males forced by economics or guns into government-supplied uniform and/or operating machinery that delivers ordnances that kill the other side are somehow more "direct" adversary than fodder producers (pregnant females) or service industry workers feeding labor force at home that produces weapons ? The fallacy of this assumption becomes obvious after some history reading: in all wars the main objective is to beat the enemy into submission and make it stay there for a long time, and that is achieved by killing as many as possible as cheaply as possible (read "unsuspecting and unarmed"). In later years, killing of so-called civillians is called "sending a message to the leader." The propaganda for domestic consumption is, of course, slightly different - "surgical strikes" and similar. > A terrorist attacks a target conveniently designated by him as SYMBOLIC > of his chosen adversary; the target is preferably unsuspecting and > undefended. The ultimate purpose is to frighten his adversary, or Dresden. Hiroshima. Pharmaceutical complex in Somalia. Refugee camps in middle east. Downtown Belgrade. Tiananmen. All effected by massively organised armies against "defensless targets." It's all economics, stupid. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
