[sweneop]

many of them are pows.

and im finding it hard to define them as terorrists here anyway... are they members of a terrorist organisation? there are times where terrorism as a definition is very clear cut, but this isnt one of them. even for more recent captures its hard to define someone who is fighting an army (even using urban guerilla tactics) as terrorists. if you start diluting that term too much it will lose all its meaning.

or is the new definition for terrorist: 'arab'?

[AmishDude]

Bottom line: If you fire at a member of a uniformed army while not wearing a uniform, you are an enemy combatant, which is the international law version of a terrorist. Hence, you don't get POW protection.

[luvbach1]

...finding it hard to define them as terorrists here anyway

With due respect, I don't have much difficulty defining them as terrorists. One who commits a terrorist act is a terrorist. I don't care if he is a card-carrying member of a terrorist organization or not. In the case of Iraq, many of the terrorists are ad hoc bands, but terrorists nonetheless. As to what constututes terrorist acts in the Iraq context,I don't have much difficulty with that either. Example: shooting of Iraqis headed to work; blowing up Iraqis waiting for work; blowing up civilian convoys of supplies and food that would benefit Iraqis as well as the coalition; blowing up water lines; attacking oil facilities, etc. I don't even dignify them as guerillas since the motives of trying to liberate Iraq from the American-led coalition is not their goal. Instead, if they succeeded in forcing an American retreat, they would impose another oppressive dictatorship of as-yet undefined composition as well as turn Iraq into a terrorist-harboring center ala Afghanistan.