War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA

I'd say too that if you were a low-tech fighter fighting against a perceived threat, are you going to take on the tanks and/or trained well-equiped infantry or try to make your mark on easier targets, knowing that eventually or hopefully the people of that government will grow weary of the deaths and petition their government to withdraw.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

I think the distinction on what is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter is more complicated than what you describe.Ie. Are soft targets at an army depot really soft? If the fuel truck depot for an army is one manned/driven by civilians, is it a terrorist act to blow it up knowing the fuel will be used by the tanks that intend to kill you? Does the pizzaria serve infantry as its primary customer base?To the best of my knowledge, saying one thing is fair game or not and actually operating under those rules rarely happens.It is my understanding that anytime two groups with a large disparity in strength/arms/technology apparant between them come into conflict, there will be asymetrical warfare and civilian deaths. (I am ignoring the obvious instances of civilian deaths glossed over by powers who are relatively equal and are excused by the theme: "It couldn't be helped" or, "They were contributing to our enemies warmachine.")Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.