"All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup, and recruit, and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history"
Trouble with Dubya's comments is how does one tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter? If he was a Tory during the late 18th century, would he consider Sam Adams and the rest as terrorists? DS
Interesting comment, what would you call a person in Iraq that fights for Saddam? A freedom fighter? Freedom for whom?
No doubt there can be ambiguous cases, but I think it is pretty clear that someone who attacks civilian citizens of a country with a legitimate government for a "cause" that has no legal standing is a terrorist. I don't limit the definition of terrorists to these cases, but I think that probably covers 95% of it.