Well put. It reminds me of a visit to the Museum of Military History in Vienna years ago. There is a room dedicated to Archduke Ferdinand and even has the car where he was killed. I was surprised at their description of the incident. I always knew of Gavrilo Princip, a young anarchist that killed him in his open car. This was, as we know the trigger for WWI. In the museum, the description is different. He is not mentioned by name, but only as a "terrorist". I am sure our slavic friends have a totally different view.



>The West is a pretty big place <g> It probably depends on which news source. Reuters news service, for example, has banned the word "Terrorist" for anybody.
>
>I certainly understand why Turkey considers the PKK terrorists.
>
>As to Afghanistan - or just about anyplace - a guy with a rifle shooting at soldiers is a fighter of some kind. He may be a guerilla or a soldier or a revolutionary or traitor - depending on which side you are on. I may be able to respect him, even as I try to kill him. I can at least understand why he may feel he is morally right.
>
>But a person who sends a child into a marketplace with a bomb strapped to his body, killing without care as to whom he kills, is a terrorist. I think he has committed a sin against the Universe.
>
>I think you would agree.
>
>>Two face of the west ; "Turkish troops say they have killed 10 guerrillas in the southeast since Monday"
>>
>>We never calls PKK as gerillas. They're terrorists...
>>
>>West calls them as gerillas. But west calls Afgan soldiers as "terrorists".
>>
>>When USA called West world for fight with terrorism, all west countries tributed with USA. But we're fighting with terrorism from 30 years... Where is the west?