Q: Guerrilla War or Terrorism?

The so called "attack on important figures, military and systems" always result in civillian casualties. By the way, leaders are civillians too.

By the way, the real Spanish Guerrillas who were the first to be called so used attrocious tactics against Spaniards who sided with Napoleonic forces. There is no real difference between Guerilla and Terrorist... It is same with the terms "invasion" and "liberation".

Note that regular soldiers killed more civillians than did "terrorists". Does that mean that the term soldier becomes the eqivelent of "rapist, torturer, murderer etc."?

Condemning of "cutting heads" is most stupid. It may look bloody, but isn't it better than torture, or burning people with Napalm? Hostage taking was always a part of guerilla, terrorist and even regular warfare.

Note that both Richard and Saladin took prisioners, and I  don't know about Saladin but Richard did behead those that were not ransomed.

The thing that is bad about Bin Laden is not that he is a "terrorist/guerilla" but because he kills civillians and seeks to impose the fascist Islamic fundementalism in nations of Middle East.

I like this definition in general - some base to start discuss details (if needed).  I like to say only about US soldiers exemple as terrorists - it depends on what You believe: 1 are they in Iraq for killing innocente people and so on or 2 only to stabilise the situation (even if they are doing it with very bad methods).

If the answer is 2 - they cannot be name terrorists and people who fighting them are.

In Poland holocaust was a terrible nightmare - thats true and none should ever forget it.

recent examples:

al queda=terroists, dont care who they kill, they want to establish a worldwide caliphate.

zapatistas=geurillas, fighting for their own autonomy against a government that has oppressed them for decades if not centuries.