Well, this is not just a bid for traffic, but I’m going to take issue with one of Instapundit‘s trademark Indeeds.
He’s commenting on a Lowell Phillips column that points out:
A cement truck laden with explosives plows into the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations and, presto-chango, there are “terrorists” in Iraq. That’s right, not “guerrillas,” not “resistance fighters,” but “terrorists.”
Now, I’m not defending the double standard that the press uses when refusing to call Palestinian terrorists “terrorists.”
But the whole point in using the label “terrorist” for someone who intentionally attacks a civilian target is to indicate that such attacks are illegitimate. We want to stop the targeting of civilians.
But if we label anyone who attacks our military forces a “terrorist,” then it blurs the distinction.
Of course, it would be better if all attacks against U.S. and U.N targets ceased. But there’s a difference between attacking military targets and attacking civilian targets. If we want to keep that line clear, then we need to acknowledge that attacks against our military forces are more legitimate than attacks against civilian targets.
Therefore: Attacks against civilian targets are done by terrorists. Attacks against military targets are done by guerrillas.
(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)