Jihad John gone

[VNA]

[size=1em]Technically, no. Terrorism by definition is not selective of it's target. Before the campaign of shock and awe, Saddam was warned about what would happen, and could predict where the coalition would strike, i.e. at edifices of his regime. The whole point of terrorism is no one knows when or where it will strike, and it is non-discriminatory.

An illustration:

A lecturer on terrorism says to his students: "Anyone wearing jeans to any more lectures will be shot", pretending he has a gun in his pocket. Asked how they would react to this, the students said they wouldn't wear jeans to lectures again. They have a choice, and know what not to do to avoid being shot. This is intimidation; violence, or the threat thereof to make people conform to a certain pattern of behaviour. This is equivalent to "shock and awe".

The lecturer then picked out one student, pointed the pretend gun at him and said, "I've just shot you, you're dead." How would the students react to avoid the same thing happening to them? Was it the colour of his shoes? Was it where he sat in the lecture hall? Maybe it was his haircut? Fact is, they couldn't know. There was no way they could amend their behaviour to ensure they weren't next. The violence was totally arbitrary. It could involve innocents and 'guilty' alike. This is terrorism.[/size]

[size=1em]

Is this an Israeli definition of terrorism perhaps?

Let me give you the dictionary definition;

[/size] The  use  of  violence  or  the  threat  of  violence,  especially  against  civilians,  in  the  pursuit  of  political  goals.    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini.../terrorism

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

So it is far from unreasonable to describe 'Shock and Awe' and the Iraq war as acts of terrorism.

And again, why do we now have IS?