vlad321 said:
Let's start with something as simple as the Boston Tea Party. If that wasn't an act of terrorism then I don't know what it would be classified as. Then, in the beginning of the war, the revolutionaries used more or less tactics that "terrorists" in Iraq are currently using. That is, inflicting as much psychological and physical damage with the least amount of casualties. Only when the ground was a little more fair, still not too advantageous of the States, did true battles start and cheap tactics ended. Of course, the history books from the US would never tell you that, bu that's to be expected. As I stated, terrorism depends on a person's Point of View. |
Thinking this way, every form of civil disobiedience for national reason or uprising can be seen as act of terrorism. I agree with majority of freedom fighters (the ones with realistic cause, and support of their people), people have a cardinal right to self determination.
What i dont agree with is bunch of ridicilous religious loons, pissed off on a whole world because it is not shaped in the way they would want it.