I think the bottom line is: The same reason somobody rapes 80 year old women - it is easier!

"Almost everyone said that it, the targeting of civilians, "works." Ok, but why does it work?" -- Because we define terrorism to be attacking only civilians, others are given the more honorable cover of gerilla/irregular warfare... so if it succceeds it succeeds. The first instance of suicide bombing by the LTTE hasnt gotten them sh!t for all that, as has first instance of dual Islamic approach in blowing buildings and leading insurgencies in Bombay failed in 1993. "There was a time, it seems to me, that the targeting of civilians was ussually regarded as counterproductive, even by ruthless groups. It that's true then what has changed?" -- At the end of the game, the world will not tolerate actual slavery by the victorious... hence the value of the civilian to the victorious is going down. "1) Retaliation. In past conflicts, occupiers often had reprisials against populations. The Union forces didn't burn Atlanta until it became clear the south was unable to invade again. There have been fewer occupier reprisials in Iraq than in other conflicts, but the data is not conclusive for me. Of course at this time we are only talking about stategy, not ethics" -- Russians, Chinese and Indians are hardly soft-gloved in their approach to curbing their terrorism... they are still perfecting the German technique of setting fire to an entire village with an incendiary round. "2) Perception of winning. Perhaps the killing of civilians only works because there is a perception that the US will quit the war? Without the perception it wouldn't even be happening." -- Actully, its a lack of historic understanding, and over-confidence among the aggressoers now. They figure that the initial expansion of Islam was easy (not really), and it will be easier enough now that others (i.e West and rising powers in east) are "soft"... typical 8th Century definition of being "hard" being bloody (interesting because the Damascus blade can cause a deep hemmorage unlike the great sword of the crusaders - a historic example lost on them). "3) Economics. If you are at war with a highly taxing government, then thier weakness is in losing the productive end of the economy, the cash producing end rather than the consuming end of it." -- A stupid way to win... since you have a shattered world economy at the end. So what exactly have you won?

Civilians are being targeted more cause: 1) Most of them are unarmed and unaware of how terrorism works. The people of this great nation have the other people to be aware for them. For instant, the military, police force, fire department, the government. Having all these organizations watching out for the people makes it easy for them to go about their day doing whatever they do. The people install trust in those organizations to do its job so they can live care-free. 2) Civilians hold the power in a Democracy ran government. If an inccident occurs, the people expect those organizations to do their job and handle it for example: If a masked man forces his way into a small business office and held five people hostage, a special response team would be call and sent to defuse the sitution and detain the suspect. As the sitution prelongs, the suspect gets anxious, so he offs one hostage knowing this will make the police think faster and more to his demands. Now lets say they gained excess to the building and seize the suspect without the remaining hostages harm, the family of the die hostage will want payback for what happen to their loved one( and they have that right). If they felt that the police department didn't act fast enough or use proper technique to save their loved one, they would sue the department and the department would have to go through more changes. The organizations are not only being aware for the people, but they're also trying to satisfy the people at the same time. 3) The Media.