"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:
The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental group; the latter requires actions by a government. The claims by Dubya et al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble.
This has been discussed within the last month here on the list, IIRC.
That might be current contemporary US usage, but it is not how the word started. Originally it was used (In French I suspect) for states terrorising the people they ruled, like the Russian pogroms. Later it was widened to include non-governmental groups. In WW2 bombing of residential cities was widely called "terror bombing" (even by Churchill in private). But it is a distinction without a difference. Who would you think had the most capacity to wage war, a small state such as Nauru or St Lucia, or an armed non-state like ETA or some of the Colombian gangs? Calling this attack "war" or "terrorism" is a matter of emotional colour. Ken