[stockpirate]

Thanks.

But objective is very subjective!

The Muslum Army could just say that the way to stop the government and military of that government is to get the "TAXPAYERS", to put pressure on their leaders.

For the taxpayers to be the target removes the far-awayness concept of a war. So it becomes more of a point of safety to them because they are on the frontline.

So, the choice of target is military because it could result in England, "Doing a Spain".

[Gunrunner2]

Everthing is subjective except for hard science, and even then there are exceptions.

The difference is the "intent" of the act.

If the intent is just and proportional then the act is acceptable (however tragic).

If, like mooslime terrorist attacks, the intent is clearly aimed at causing the innocent to suffer with not proportional military gain, then it is an evil act.

Attacking people to put pressure on a government is evil, as this violates the concept of "Strategic Devastation." Strategic Devastation is indiscriminate and without purpose except to cause pain on the innocent. . .again, with no proportional military gain.

Attacking people through terror attacks is evil because it has no aim other than to cause the suffering of the innocent.

Complicated stuff and that is why the military has JAG's at all levels. . .to help the commander make the difficult moral judgment calls.