&gt; Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don&#x27;t see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can?<p>You are making a lot of assumptions, which Greenwald actually addresses and refutes at the beginning of the article. The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all. If anybody strains to minimize civilian casualties, they&#x27;re doing a piss-poor job of it. In fact, often it looks as if non-combatants and civilian structures were deliberately targeted.<p>But you are of course right. As long as you a priori define allied action as legitimate military strikes, and enemy action as illegal terror attacks, you will always be right. And that is the very point of the article.<p>Let&#x27;s agree to disagree on that one. Because the discussion we should be having is, what objectives is the &quot;War on Terror&quot;, (or, as I like to call it, because terrorism is just a method of warfare, <i>War on War</i>) trying to achieve, and are they worth the price?