Last night on Lateline Tony Jones interviewed Pakistani Minister for Religious Affairs Muhammad Ijaz ul Haq. Jones used phrases and words such as "terrorist plots," "terrorist events," and "terrorists" quite freely.

He notably avoided the use of "militant."

So who is a "terrorist" and who is a "militant?"

Analysing ABC commentary the following pattern emerges:

Terrorists kill Australians and Brits.

Everybody else gets killed by militants.

See:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1989528.htm

The dictionary definition of a militant is one who is prepared to take up arms for a cause.
I guess that could be seen as a generic term covering both freedom fighters, as seen in France and elsewhere during the war, and also terrorists.

Terrorists are quite different. They are prepared to kill their own with the same indifference they kill their perceived enemy. In fact, to instil fear and compliance among
their own people they will resort to this type of action.

The following site is a typical example of terrorism, where those opposing or challenging a specific group are tortured and killed.

http://www.shoebat.com/palestinian_justice.php

it's quite simple, really: i'm a pacifist, you're a militant, he's a terrorist.

when i was young, it was easy. we were the good guys. the other guys were terrorists, although we used other words: red devils, greasers, gooks. during the course of the vietnam war my viewpoint changed. it was pretty clear the usa was engaged in war crimes, and once i grasped that was possible, all of american history took on a sinister meaning.

it's still pretty easy. but you do have to ask questions: whose army is on whose land? is the united nations involved? who is profiting from the conflict?

.

It's quite simple really ,
a terrorist is a militant who do not have a particular target, but simply seek to create fear through indiscriminate " direct action " they lack any specified object to the " action " but only the effect on mental framework it will produce,
it's like advertisers , but with bombs !

In classic marxist-leninist theory they are defined as the tools of repression , the cause and motive to pass ever more repressive measure in a law abiding society ,
the G.W.Bush / Al Quaeda tango is a case in point , both using and " cooperating " with each other to create a propaganda campaign

sincere terrorists seek to aggravate a society instability by pushing it to the edge of indifference and into blind reaction
this is the theory of the worst ,
to strip any illusions about what kind of beast an organised society is

basically dangerous masturbatory intellectuals

.

Hey Randwick..colorful imagery there :)

Militant...Terrorist.. or....."ENEMY"

We need to change our categorization of people opposed to our way of life.

Its not hard.. they are either 'friends/allies' or... 'enemies'

Some enemies will be only at the ideological level, others at the violent level, others still at both. But they are all enemies.

I see no reason to make any distinction between them.

Terrorists are individuals who use terrorism as a tool for their agenda. They use direct terror on the population. They don't prefer to attack and direct their energy at the proposed enemy. A militant is a soldier for a cause. Usually the cause is against a dictatorship within their country. A militant may have a justifiable case for their cause, but don't use terror on the population as a tool. They are generally fighting FOR the people. Not personal agendas.