"What is a terrorist?"

Anderson Cooper invited visitors to his site to answer the question, “What makes a terrorist?” The responses varied greatly. Some people were angry that he would dare to ask such a question because for them the answer was obvious. Some felt such an effort is futile because it all depends on which side you’re on.

For me, the word "terrorist" connotes any individual, either acting alone or as part of group--and this could be anything from a loose coalition of small "cells" to large groups of organized, uniformed regulars--that aims to influence political action (such as the withdrawal of an occupying force or political self-determination, ethnic cleansing, etc.) through a policy of attacking soft targets, i.e. unarmed civilians. (Terrorism for financial extortion is so rare, I won't go into it here--I'll leave that to Hollywood.) In short, terrorism is a weapon of the weak. It is a blunt-edged tool of those lacking the firepower, organization and technology to directly confront an opposing military force or government.

I'm not very well versed on the subject, but I think comparing the U.S. Revolutionary War with the Hezbollah rocket/suicide attacks on Israel is like comparing apples and oranges. As far as I know, the American revolutionaries did not embark on a policy of attacking unarmed (Loyalist) civilians (although this may have happened on a small scale), and they were logistically incapable of attacking civilians in England even had they wanted to.

So, by my definition, by its policy of targeting unarmed civilians Hezbollah *is* a terrorist organization, no matter what kind of social services are provided to the public. The same applies to the IRA.

At the same time, I would hesitate to lump all of the sectarian insurgents in Iraq in the "terrorist" camp. Some are targeting the U.S. military because they see us as occupiers and, no matter how much Shi'ites and Sunnis may hate each other, they will *never* accept being ruled by infidels, and they see their nascent republic as nothing but a puppet of its American masters. By extension this means that individuals in the Iraqi government, military and police are eligible targets (of course, much of this attitude is sectarian in nature--the Sunni insurgents are a case in point). At the other end of the spectrum are those who simply will kill anyone not of their sect. I'm sure there's a lot of overlap of intents here, which just complicates the picture further.

The bottom line is, because modern warfare increasingly involves street fighting in densely populated urban areas the propensity for collateral damage is increased. Innocent civilians are going to be killed, no matter what. What makes a terrorist a terrorist in my book is whether or not he is directly attacking civilians to further his own agenda.