Replies

"Isn't blowing up oil pipelines, killing civilian aid workers, international agencies, businesspeople and other civilian structures(police stations, etc) terrorism?"

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on who you are, where you are and what your motives are.

Killing is a morally neutral act, it is the intention of the killer and the circumstances under which the act takes place, that make it a crime of 'murder' subject to a heavy punishment, an 'unfortunate accident', or an 'act of valor' rewarded by a medal. Similarly blowing up various components of civilian infrastructure.

Since there is no universal definition of the term 'terrorism' the whole concept is open to debate and interpretation. Sure flying planes into skyscrapers most people would regard as terrorism, however as you get away from such extremes the definition become less clear cut.

The act is a fait accompli in itself. That is to say there is generally no strategic or tactical advantage in the act other than to scare and intimidate.

So to answer your question Skywalk, I don't know. Oil pipelines are probably a reasonable strategic target in order to hamper US rebuilding efforts and thus foster a malaise with the occupation. The rest of your examples are probably justified by the protaganists in the same manner, and there is a kind of cold, ruthless logic (but remember who we are dealing with here, Saddam the most evil pragmatist this side of Stalin) in this.

However, and it's a big however, some of the attacks have been suicide missions which is hardly the MO of the godless Baath party.

It takes a certain level of nutty theological conviction to blow yourself up attacking civilians. I personally think that Islamists are behind the suicide attacks.

I'd be interested to hear your views.