|
Whatever our lines are for discerning terrorist from freedom fighter, I'm not sure the presence of a nation-state matters as much as the actions of the would-be freedom fighter. Terrorism has been defined as violence against the state by non-state actors, which is fine from the perspective of the state. It's the actions, the violence against civilians, that matters imo.
Now, trying to create a state by targetting civilians and specifically inducing fear, I'll call that terrorism. I'll also call it terrorism when a state does the same for whatever purpose, even in apparent defense of itself. We could all think of examples of this I bet.
AFAIK George Washington attacked military targets, which are always fair game, and pretty well defines him as a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a continental upstart [img]smile.gif[/img] . Traitor and rebel would have also been appropriate from the British perspective.
btw, I like that the article mentions the "Communist mayors" twice and it's about 75 words long lol
|