[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Having read the argument here and been involved in a similar one on twitter yesterday, I'm still not totally sure what the definition of "terrorism" should be. But I do think there should be a line drawn between people who deliberately target civilians, and those who do not. One group of people is clearly more dangerous and morally "worse" than the other, in my view. So if we're calling people "terrorists" whether they target civilians or not, we do need another word to specify the innocent-civilian-targeting sort of terrorist.

I'm inclined to agree with those who instead say we should simply call them "terrorists", and call non-civilian-targeting armed insurgents "militants". Similarly, I'd call an act a "terrorist" act only if it harms civilians. Not to say that militant actions aren't bad, they're just different kinds of activities with very different goals.

I said this earlier in the thread, but the inclusion of weapons in the activities lead make me lean towards the "terrorist" tag.