It's not about fighting fair, it is about perpetrating violent acts against civilians in order to achieve political or ideological objectives by instilling fear into the general population.

__________________
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ Qur'an:8:39

Muslims aren't dying from war....they're being murdered by members of their own cult.

Oh, is that so?

So, when the terrorists attack US troops, they're no longer terrorists?

When they blew up the base in saudia arabia, that wasn't terrorism, nor was the attack on the USS Cole?

Get over yourself, terrorism is just a word, and that word means something different to each person who uses it to "instill fear into the general population".

When they engage coalition forces from civilian areas or dressed as civilians - not representing a state and bound by the laws and customs that the state - then they are indeed terrorists, aren't they? Who can be held responsible for their actions? It is their strength, is it not? Very few stand-up fights taking place when we do engage these fuckers.

Words have specific meanings, and being ignorant of the meaning or wishing it had a different one doesn't make one less wrong. People who want to equate terrorists with soldiers are misguided.

They're guerrillas.

Just like the american army in the war for independence, they didn't follow conventional battlefield rules, they didn't have uniforms, they would hit and run...

It's all a matter of perspective.

LOL...They're guerrillas just like the American army, good one. Thanks for the laugh.

__________________
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ Qur'an:8:39

Muslims aren't dying from war....they're being murdered by members of their own cult.

Attacking US forces is a bonus not the end game and it's certainly not the modus operandi of the "insurgency"(terrorists).

__________________
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ Qur'an:8:39

Muslims aren't dying from war....they're being murdered by members of their own cult.

So, you think the british didn't view the americans as terrorists?

Never fought face to face, always hit and run, no uniforms, etc.

Hell, half the population didn't even support them.

Then by your standard, the Iranian Army and the Mahdi Army, et al, aren't terrorists.

But presumably the CIA and the DEA and the other extra-legal US government acts targeting civilians in governments that the US was both allied with, and opposed to, are classic examples of terrorism. For example, the CIA took out the leader of Vietnam based on statements from by the State Dept about how much of a problem he presented to the future of Vietnam in something like 1964. The undermining of the prime minister of Iran and then bringing in the Shah and helping him become dictator. The arms deal with Iran with Israel as the middle man with the profits going to fund the Contras who were engaged in terrorism to overthrow a couple of governments in South America. The funding of and supplying of and training of militaries which disappear opponents of the US supported dictators, and this funding and training being done when everyone know about the death squads. None of these things are different than what radical elements of the complex ruling structure of Saudi Arabia has been trying to do via proxies such as Pakistan and Saddam and the PLO.

Osama just happens to be one of the more successful of the many who become rogue agents. Remember that Saddam was tool of the Reagan administration in US foriegn policy in regard to Iran, but he then went rogue and invaded Kuwait. I imagine Saddam finding the US reaction to his invasion of Kuwait to be confusing, because he and Bush both wanted the same thing, higher oil prices. The falling oil prices in the 80s had by the time Bush took office caused all the oil recovery projects started during the Carter administration, eg, the oil shale development, to be abandoned because Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia were shipping too much oil and driving down oil prices. The biggest opponent to cutting back production was Kuwait.

Of course, the US wasn't the only one using Saddam as a proxy against Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were as well, and they had loaned Saddam vast sums and were demanding repayment when Saddam lost his war with Iran.

I'm not sure if any of the wars the US has been involved in post WWII didn't occur after the US was involved in some form of terrorism, either specifically promoting terrorism, or supporting dictators who used terrorism.

Afghanistan's wars were heavily influenced by or caused by US sponsored terrorism via Pakistan. The wars related to Yugoslavia's breakup involved an expansion of the Afghanistan terrorism, also with the goal of forcing a breakup and collapse of the Soviet Union. Vietnam's course was heavily influence by US terrorism there, and we were allied with the target of the terrorism. Haiti, Grenada, Panama, more of the same. Noriega had long worked for the US as a CIA operative and gained his power with the perhaps unwitting support of the US CIA.

And Condi admitted as much, saying past US policies and actions against friend and foe had blowback. (Boy if Rev Wright had quoted Condi with the right intonation, the crap would have really hit the fan. Instead, Wright quoted a former officer of the State Department.)

Your talking about guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. Terrorism targets civilians exclusively, which is why more Muslims are being murdered by members of their own cult than any other outside force.
Now if Americans had gone to England and started blowing themselves up among the general population, then I'd agree with you.

__________________
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ Qur'an:8:39

Muslims aren't dying from war....they're being murdered by members of their own cult.

Beforehand, I was informed that the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism, as was the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut, etc..

Make up your mind.