Is it "terrorism" when military assets are targeted or attacked?

[Postman]

n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Terrorism is a tactic, used by all sides in Iraq, inclucing the Americans.

The idea of "stopping terrorism" makes about as much sense as saying "stop artillery", or "stop airstrikes".

"Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor." - A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Terrorism is directed against civilians.

Although in newspeak terrorism has become 'anything done against us'.

[lvx35]

3. If its freindly military assets, yes. Terrorism is the term applied to US enemies.

If it were enemy military assets then the they would be acts of "freedom fighters", such as when Bin Laden's freedom fighters, the "mujahadeen", fought Soviet occupiers in Afganistan.

[Sherman A1]

4. I believe that the more appropriate term would be

asymmetric warfare. All warfare includes it's level of terror, that's part of the thing. I this case it would be more on the unconventional or asymmetric side.

[Disturbed]

5. No.

Terrorism only applies to civilian targets.