Tom, I do not dispute that terror can exist anywhere from anyone and that it is tramautic and tragic whevever it exists. What I dispute is combining military action and terrorist activities into the same group. They are NOT the same. The intended target is not the same.


>>In that case, all military action from any country in the world for any reason (even self-defense) would fall into the category of terrorism. Yet we know that there is a clear separation of 'accepted' military actions and 'terrorism.' I submit that the definition you found is too generic to be applied in the world today for there is a clear difference between a group of individuals blowing up a bus of civilians to make a political point and the military targeting missile sites because they are weapons and a military target.
>>
>>Tracy
>>
>Tracy;
>
>My feeling is that regardless of if you are in uniform or not you can inflict terror in others. Terror is terror. I do not see the need to define it in complex or changing terms. The end result of an act may be terror.
>
>In Vietnam a B-52 would lay a trail of conventional bombs. The concussion would create permanent ear damage to anyone within 1 ½ miles of the path. The same events occurred during the Gulf War. Ask me why I have nerve damage to my ears? No do not! I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through any form of terror.
>
>Terror is an upsetting event to the individual. Trying to justify it with laws and definitions does not change what it truly is. If a person is terrorized they will not run to the reference you cited or to any other reference. They will know it from within.
>
>Tom