Quote: MisterJLA said: I look at whether or not the "fighters" are recognized by a legitimate government, and what their end goal is.
In the case of American rebels during the Revolution, a government was agreed upon, and thier goal was independence from a government that was oppressing them.
In the case of the U.S.S. Cole, bin Laden's fanantics were behind that...hardly a noble cause, and not a real recognized government.
Lets just compare these two.
In the first scenario, you had a England as an occupying power over a colony that had declared independence, leading to guerrilla warfare.
In the second scenario, al Qaeda at least at that point in time was concerned primarily with the existence of infidel military bases in the holiest of holy lands, Arabia (which contains two of Islam's holiest sites, Mecca and Medina), leading to a guerilla attack on an infidel vessel in adjacent (Yemeni) waters.
The only significant difference is that the War of Independence was economic and political, whereas for al Qaeda's supporters it was a matter of offence against their faith. You should feel free to correct me on the War of Independence, by the way - I know next to nothing about it.
The real shame about al Qaeda is that just before 9/11 the US Govt was going to abandon its Prince Saud Airbase facility and move to Oman, but then that was put on hold indefinitely because that would be seen as giving in to terrorism. Too bad it wasn't better publicised - 9/11 might have been considered unnecessary by bin Laden.
But perhaps that is wishful thinking.
It seems to me that if you want to achieve sweeping change, violence is the way to do it. Lets face it - the Persian Gulf hasn't been crawling with a carrier group for decades for no good reason.
