Originally Posted by
Pete_S
As long as they stuck to military targets and didn't pull Tim Mcvays then I really wouldn't call them terrorists. Rebels, maybe.
To further your example, say 70% of the Texas populace decided to join the fight and engaged in open warfare with the US military? Would they still be terrorists?
But I agree the line between terrorist, freedom fighter, and rebel is fairly thin (and in some cases interchangeable), prolly helped by the fact that "terrorist" sells more newspapers then an alternate word. My idea of a terrorist is pretty similar to the one given above, where they use fear as an instrument of political change, are usually willing to attack civilian targets, and don't really engage in traditional military actions. The founding fathers really didn't conform to this, in my opinion.
