Terrorism is violence, but not every from of violence is terrorism. It is vitally important to recognize that terrorism, although difficult to define precisely, as this brief history will show, is not a synonym for civil war, banditry, or guerilla warfare. (Anderson, Sean, 2002.)
The term guerilla often has a positive connotation in our language, whereas terrorism almost always has a negative meaning. British and French news media will take a dim view of those engaging in terrorist operations in London and Paris, and will not hesitate to call the perpetrators "terrorist." But they are more reluctant to use such harsh terms with regard to those throwing bombs in distant countries, preferring more neutral terms such as "gunmen," "militants," Islamic or otherwise, or indeed "urban guerilla." In fact, the term urban guerilla is a contradiction in terms.
The strategy of guerilla warfare is to liberate territory, to establish counter institutions and eventually a regular army, and this is possible in jungles, mountains, or other sparely inhabited zones. The classic case of guerilla warfare is China in the 1930s and 1940s; others, such as Vietnam's defeat of the French colonials and Castro's struggle in Cuba, are roughly similar.
It is virtually impossible to establish free zones in a city, and for this reason the inaccurate and misleading term urban guerilla is usually politically motivated or based on a simple misunderstanding of the difference between the guerilla and the terrorist. What makes the situation even more complicated is the fact that quite often guerillas engage in terrorist acts both in the countryside and in urban centers. Algebra in the 1990s is a dramatic example.
There are other misunderstanding concerning the motives and the character of terrorism. For a long time there has been resistance in some circles to the use of the.......
