Fair definitions of terrorist and terrorism

[turbo]

Sadly, the definition of terrorism is co-opted by the groups that employ it, and by the media that report on its use. If Hamas fires a rocket into Israeli territory, that act will unambiguously be called terrorism by the US media, while if an Israeli helicopter gunship blows up an apartment building to kill a Palestinian leader and "accidentally" kills a dozen innocent people in the act, that will be called a "surgical strike" with "unfortunate collateral damage", as if killing innocent people can be swept aside as mere "damage".

There are governments (including the US) that have employed terrorism and continue to do so, directly and by proxy. The acts of violence perpetrated on civilians by central American death squads trained at the School of the Americas are certainly terroristic; however, if the perpetrators are wearing uniforms (as is often the case with state-sponsored terrorism) they often get the benefit of the doubt in the news media.

 

[Yonoz]

If Hamas fires a rocket into Israeli territory, that act will unambiguously be called terrorism by the US media, while if an Israeli helicopter gunship blows up an apartment building to kill a Palestinian leader and "accidentally" kills a dozen innocent people in the act, that will be called a "surgical strike" with "unfortunate collateral damage", as if killing innocent people can be swept aside as mere "damage".

The difference being the intent behind the 2 acts. Hamas' rockets are fired with the intent of terrorizing the Israeli population. A strike on a militant is intended to prevent future bloodshed.
By your logic, someone causing death by negligence is a terrorist.

 

[turbo]

The difference being the intent behind the 2 acts. Hamas' rockets are fired with the intent of terrorizing the Israeli population. A strike on a militant is intended to prevent future bloodshed.
By your logic, someone causing death by negligence is a terrorist.

No, you take my example out of context. Blowing up an occupied apartment building because you think a "terrorist" might be in it is itself an act of terrorism, since innocent human lives will be lost.

I can see the value in causing people to fear offering shelter to their leaders so you can isolate them, but not at the cost of killing innocents. Every leader of every militant group, be they in the organized state-sponsored military forces, militia groups, insurgents, etc is replaceable. For every one that is killed, another will step into carry on the fight. The willing acceptance of civilian casualties in such a futile war of attrition is illogical and inhuman.

 

[Yonoz]

No, you take my example out of context. Blowing up an occupied apartment building because you think a "terrorist" might be in it is itself an act of terrorism, since innocent human lives will be lost.

So that only narrows it down to every government that's engaged in warfare.

I can see the value in causing people to fear offering shelter to their leaders so you can isolate them, but not at the cost of killing innocents. Every leader of every militant group, be they in the organized state-sponsored military forces, militia groups, insurgents, etc is replaceable. For every one that is killed, another will step into carry on the fight. The willing acceptance of civilian casualties in such a futile war of attrition is illogical and inhuman.

That is not the intent; the intent is to prevent a terrorist from carrying out a planned or partially executed act of terrorism. To authorize such a strike, senior brass and their legal advisers must be presented with evidence that executing it will remove a clear and present danger. It is illogical to kill a leader for the sake of killing them - as you mentioned, they are replaceable and such a strike has counter-productive aspects to it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Notice how it first says a criminal act followed by cases where said criminal act is not allowed. Also notice how we had wolrd support to enter into Afghanistan? Also notice how we did not provoke a state of terror in the general public, it was the taliban that was doing that. You last sentence is silly, you know better than to write something like that. No country has a law allowing another country to bomb any of its cities.

Its not russ that said it was legal, it was the United Nations that said it was legal.

Ah, you consider anything from the U.N. to be from a completely objective point of view, Cyrus? I'll remember to quote you on that at some point in the future.

This means that you'll accept any U.N. condemnation of U.S. actions being unlawful as completely objective and you'll say the U.S. is behaving illegally in that case, right?

Wow, this is like Christmas in February. :tongue2: But note that I didn't say that I think the action in Afghanistan was terrorism - I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen. Again, who is a terrorist and who is not is always something arrived at in a subjective manner.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, you consider anything from the U.N. to be from a completely objective point of view, Cyrus? I'll remember to quote you on that at some point in the future.

This means that you'll accept any U.N. condemnation of U.S. actions being unlawful as completely objective and you'll say the U.S. is behaving illegally in that case, right?

Wow, this is like Christmas in February. :tongue2: But note that I didn't say that I think the action in Afghanistan was terrorism - I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen. Again, who is a terrorist and who is not is always something arrived at in a subjective manner.

⚛​

I think I already addressed this point in my previous post.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think I already addressed this point in my previous post.

Ah, so you consider world opinion to be an objective indicator of what is criminal and what isn't, as well as the U.N.'s opinion, eh? That's even better.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

When you voilate the rules you agreed to as part of your membership to the UN, its not an opinion.

But note that I didn't say that I think the action in Afghanistan was terrorism - I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen. Again, who is a terrorist and who is not is always something arrived at in a subjective manner.

No, the afghans can't label it as terrorism. Also, its not subjective that the soviets were terrorists when making hostile attacks on afghanistan. The soviets were invading another country. How on Earth is this not painfully obvious to you?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When you voilate the rules you agreed to as part of your membership to the UN, its not an opinion.

So whether or not Afghanistan had the right as a sovereign nation to try bin Laden themselves isn't a matter of opinion, evidently. I don't suppose that the U.S. has to turn over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Accusations_of_war_crimes_and_legal_difficulties" for trial on the war crimes (fitting the definition of terrorism, perhaps?) that he's been accused of - that one wouldn't be a matter of opinion, would it?

No, the afghans can't label it as terrorism. Also, its not subjective that the soviets were terrorists when making hostile attacks on afghanistan. The soviets were invading another country. How on Earth is this not painfully obvious to you?

So invading another country is objectively to be considered terrorism! This just keeps getting better.

BTW - Saying “Why won't you just say I'm right? Why do you keep bringing up logical objections to the objectivity of my opinions?!?” doesn't exactly demonstrate that you have a firm grasp of what objectivity is.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

So whether or not Afghanistan had the right as a sovereign nation to try bin Laden themselves isn't a matter of opinion, evidently. I don't suppose that the U.S. has to turn over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Accusations_of_war_crimes_and_legal_difficulties" for trial on the war crimes (fitting the definition of terrorism, perhaps?) that he's been accused of - that one wouldn't be a matter of opinion, would it?

The fact that the taliban was committing acts of abuse on its own people, in combination with harboring Bin Laden, forfeits that right. If you really think they were going to hand over Bin Laden and have a trial when time was critical in finding him, I have a bridge to sell you.

So invading another country is objectively to be considered terrorism! This just keeps getting better.

Was it a criminal act on the part of the soviets? Yes, it was. There is a difference between a war by invation, and a war by liberation.

BTW - Saying “Why won't you just say I'm right? Why do you keep bringing up logical objections to the objectivity of my opinions?!?” doesn't exactly demonstrate that you have a firm grasp of what objectivity is.

I never said that, your just acting like a fool again. Are you going to suggest I play with dolls again? Let's get serious, and spare me the temper tantrum every time you post.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You're right Cyrus, how foolish of me. You're demonstrating a Supreme-Court-Justice-like command of what objectivity is and is not. Claiming that I'm not being serious as a way to try to dismiss disagreement your point is an especially adroit way of demonstrating that.

Who is right or wrong in wars and violent action against civilians is never subject to individual opinion. “Liberation” is such an excellent example of an objective term.

[/sarcasm]

I [post=1624760]gave you a chance[/post], man, and by ignoring it you demonstrated that your protestations of innocence are so much chaff. I'm not going to pretend that you aren't a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29" . You're trying to drag a conversation about terminology and objectivity into a political discussion about Afghanistan.

I avoided any mention of current political events until Russ refused to respond to any situation we're actually all 3rd parties to. If you really want to discuss Afghanistan, start a thread and provide a link and I'll tell you what I actually think about that situation. Otherwise, start actually talking about objectivity instead of talking about liberation and making up U.N. mandates for invading Afghanistan, or pretending that worldwide opinion is the same thing as objectivity.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is the definition you piled on with Russ to disagree with:

A terrorist is someone who uses violence upon non-military targets usually in pursuit of a political goal, IMHO.

The problem is two fold: 1) Almost no one would call themselves a terrorist - it's a name applied to other people and 2) The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

So really, it's someone who employs the violence upon non-military targets tactic, plus they're a bad guy. If you can agree with someone on who the bad guys are you can probably agree with them on who the terrorists are. But if the two of you don't agree on who the bad guys are you'll probably end up arguing about who the terrorists are too.

Show me how that is not true if you want to say that “terrorist” is a purely objective term. Will you at least admit that “bad guys” is a subjective term?

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

You're right Cyrus, how foolish of me. You're demonstrating a Supreme-Court-Justice-like command of what objectivity is and is not. Claiming that I'm not being serious as a way to try to dismiss disagreement your point is an especially adroit way of demonstrating that.

Who is right or wrong in wars and violent action against civilians is never subject to individual opinion. “Liberation” is such an excellent example of an objective term.

[/sarcasm]

I am not talking about objectivity. You brought that up with Russ, talk to Russ about it. Dont argue with me about your conversation with Russ. Violent actions against civilans is a definition of terrorism based on the link we are talking about. Why are you playing the whos side are you on argument? We can go into depth on what I mean by liberation if you would like.

I [post=1624760]gave you a chance[/post], man, and by ignoring it you demonstrated that your protestations of innocence are so much chaff. I'm not going to pretend that you aren't a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29" . You're trying to drag a conversation about terminology and objectivity into a political discussion about Afghanistan.

Stay on topic, or get lost.

I avoided any mention of current political events until Russ refused to respond to any situation we're actually all 3rd parties to. If you really want to discuss Afghanistan, start a thread and provide a link and I'll tell you what I actually think about that situation. Otherwise, start actually talking about objectivity instead of talking about liberation and making up U.N. mandates for invading Afghanistan, or pretending that worldwide opinion is the same thing as objectivity.

⚛​

I was talking about what was mentioned, namely, Afghanistan and Iraq. Please learn how to read, and post in response to what I have said, not what you want me to have said.

 

[Cyrus]

This is the definition you piled on with Russ to disagree with:



Show me how that is not true if you want to say that “terrorist” is a purely objective term. Will you at least admit that “bad guys” is a subjective term?

⚛​

Did I even say I disagree with your definition anywhere? Reading comprehension, anyone?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, if the problem is just that you misunderstood my example of objectivity as an assertion that I think the invasion of Afghanistan was terrorism - and somehow continued in that misunderstanding even after I clearly stated that I do not think it was - and you aren't saying anything about “terrorist” being an objective term even though you're claiming that it's somehow impossible or incomprehensible for Afghanis to refer to the U.S. action to terrorize their country into turning over bin Laden via bombings that killed a great many civilians as “terrorism” - well then I guess you really aren't saying anything at all, so yeah, I certainly can't disagree with you.

And “Learn to read” is just brilliant, a really spectacular way of responding to someone pointing out that you're a troll. You couldn't have done more to prove my point for me. It's like “Troll sez what?” “What?”

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

I replied to a specific statement you made and showed you that it was factually incorrect.

Your "example" is wrong, and thats what I was pointing out. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ. You really do love to hear yourself bable on, and on, and on about objectivity. I am going to clue you in, I don't care. Thats not what I was complaining about. Am I clear now? Can you finally see what I am saying?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Y'know what - hey, I'll pretend for your sake that I didn't respond to this fact issue as soon as you made that claim. Yeah, let's talk about the facts of Afghanistan as if this thread isn't about terminology.

So - forget the fact that legal / illegal as part of a definition of “terrorist” is subjective, which is what I was pointing out by saying that the invasion of Afghanistan would be illegal under Afghan law, which your evidently-far-superior-to-mine reading skills did not seem to grasp at the time. I guess you were just claiming that it's not possible for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to be subjectively labeled as a “terrorist” action within just the context of the U.N.

You seem to be arguing something like it's legal, rather than criminal, under the rules and regulations of the U.N. for the U.S. to invade the sovereign U.N. member state of Afghanistan without a resolution from the U.N. Security Council? What were the “facts” you presented that I was unable to read properly? I don't see any U.N. resolutions that authorize or even endorse the invasion of Afghanistan anywhere. The thing you quoted is something about establishing a new government in Afghanistan after the invasion. Feel free to cite something and drop some knowledge on my illiterate head any time you want.

Because I do care about the trollish argument about the details of the action in Afghanistan you decided to inject into the middle of this thread about the meaning of the word “terrorist”, I really really do.

Oh, here's another nifty little thing I noticed: even though I evidently completely misunderstood that you weren't talking about objectivity because I can't read, funnily enough you [post=1627235]quoted a bunch of my comments[/post] about objectivity and claimed to have addressed them. But what do I know, I can't read.

⚛​

 

[binzing]

Don't get Cyrus started. He will hold his opinion as sacred text and fight you to the death over it. The original question seems to have been answered...

 

[Cyrus]

CQ, you made the following statement:

I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen.

I showed how this was not true. Thats all I showed.

So - forget the fact that legal / illegal as part of a definition of “terrorist” is subjective, which is what I was pointing out by saying that the invasion of Afghanistan would be illegal under Afghan law, which your evidently-far-superior-to-mine reading skills did not seem to grasp at the time. I guess you were just claiming that it's not possible for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to be subjectively labeled as a “terrorist” action within just the context of the U.N.

Do you not understand that I've been saying this is a STUPID point all along? NO country would have such a law that would say invation of their country is legal. I already said this. And what do you mean claiming. What claim am I making here? I am stating a fact. I already said that if the actions on the part of the US were considered Illegal, then it would be a terrorist act. They are not illegal, and therefore it is not considered a terrorist act. This is pretty much agreed upon by the world community in terms of Afghanistan. The soviet invation of Afghanistan was considered illegal, because it was an imperalistic takeover. Moreover, a criminal act is determined by the rules of international law agreed to by members of the United Nations. Not what is written in the constitution of the Taliban, so why are you even bringing this up?

For the last time, you chose a BAD example, and THATS ALL IM SAYING.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

You can discuss objectivity all you want, just don't use BAD examples in the process. Thats what I am taking issue with.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Do you not understand that I've been saying this is a STUPID point all along? NO country would have such a law that would say invation of their country is legal. I already said this.

Yeah, you're right. Kinda seems to indicate… oh, I don't know, that legality and criminality are just a little bit subjective? But I'm not sure, I have awful reading comprehension, y'see.

And what do you mean claiming. What claim am I making here? I am stating a fact. I already said that if the actions on the part of the US were considered Illegal, then it would be a terrorist act. They are not illegal, and therefore it is not considered a terrorist act. This is pretty much agreed upon by the world community in terms of Afghanistan.

Oh, I see, you're saying that “positively viewed in world opinion” is the same thing as “legal”. You're right, that's ever so factual. Doesn't even need to be proven or supported at all.

It's not that you're using the words “illegal” and “factual” to conjure support for your argument out of thin air, and claiming to have “showed” something when I pointed that you quoted a completely irrelevant U.N. document, no not at all.

And speaking of bad examples, it's not like the International Law Wikipedia article you linked to gives the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter" as an example of international law. And it's not as if the very first statement in that document, Chapter I, Article I, says:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

You're so right, there's just no way at all that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan could be considered illegal from any viewpoint on international law whatsoever. And there's no way that Afghanistan insisting on trying bin Laden themselves couldn't be considered legal justification for aggression against a sovereign U.N. member state, because… oh, that's right, you haven't even attempted to present any evidence about that.

Well it seems like someone in this thread is really bad with examples, that's for sure. Have you ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection" , Cyrus?

When you start throwing around claims about inability to read and bad or incoherent examples, you ought to make sure you aren't the one doing exactly those things or you're liable to make yourself look foolish. But I don't mind, it's fun shooting fish in a barrel.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

So per the U.N. Charter, a document of international law by his own Wikipedia definition, and his statement in the latter quote above, Cyrus considers the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to be an act of terrorism. I will relish citing him on this in the future, that's why I've put this in a separate post. Good thing for me that per his own assertion objectivity and subjectivity don't enter into matters of international law, so he doesn't think there's any disputing of this sort of dictate of international law.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

You're so right, there's just no way at all that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan could be considered illegal from any viewpoint on international law whatsoever. And there's no way that Afghanistan insisting on trying bin Laden themselves couldn't be considered legal justification for aggression against a sovereign U.N. member state, because… oh, that's right, you haven't even attempted to present any evidence about that.

So I guess those UN soldiers have super soakers for guns? Spare me your hippie tirade.

Also, can you spare us the whimpering?

You're so right, there's just no way at all that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan could be considered illegal from any viewpoint on international law whatsoever.

Its not considered illegal, so this point is stupid. What other hypothetical nonsense do you want to talk about next? Or are you going to complain about who can read better. No one cares man, seriously. Enough with the third grade insults.

I have work to do, I am going to leave you to your own fantasy land where you can debate hypotheticals all you want that don't reflect reality. Have a great day. We are done.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

So I guess those UN soldiers have super soakers for guns? Spare me your hippie tirade.

Also, can you spare us the whimpering?

Are you referring to some U.N. soldiers who participated in the invasion of Afghanistan? Because that would be the first time I'd heard of anything like that.

There are U.N. soldiers and other personnel http://www.uniraq.org/" . Doesn't have anything at all to do with whether the invasion of Iraq was legal by international law.

Its not considered illegal, so this point is stupid. What other hypothetical nonsense do you want to talk about next?

Well, let's talk about the hypothetical nonsense that there's any sort of proof that the invasion of the sovereign U.N. member Afghanistan was legal by international law. Because that has bearing on the one single claim you were supposedly making: that it's impossible to characterize George Bush as a terrorist by the U.N.'s definition of terrorism. Which, on the contrary, it's entirely possible to do.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Or are you going to complain about who can read better. No one cares man, seriously. Enough with the third grade insults.

Hilarious! Mister “Learn to read!” is actually admitting he resorted to throwing out third grade insults as responses. Another one for the history books. This thread has been like watching you punch yourself in the face repeatedly.

I have work to do, I am going to leave you to your own fantasy land where you can debate hypotheticals all you want that don't reflect reality. Have a great day. We are done.

And he's out! Yet again turning tail and running because he can't take the heat or acknowledge that he makes completely erroneous unfactual statements. Be careful, Cyrus, you might make a name for yourself.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

Just an fyi here - you keep talking about me, but I'm not going to participate in this thread anymore. You've put words in my mouth while at the same time you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. That said:

So you have a definition for “terrorist” and you objectively apply it to every individual who fits it? That would be pretty impressive if it was true.

You cut and pasted a definition in up above. If I start naming people who fit the definition and who don't, you'll really just accept all the ones who fit it as terrorists and all the ones who don't as non-terrorists? Without displaying any political or nationalist subjectivity? And then I can quote you in future conversations about who you say is a terrorist and who is not?

Why do I not buy that?

The reason you don't buy that is that you think I'm like you. I'm not like you. Because of this, there really isn't anything to be gained by this discussion.

Cyrus is banging his head against a wall trying to make you understand things here. I wish him luck. The best advice I can give you, though, is to read other peoples' posts twice before responding. Your responses don't follow what you are reading, which implies you aren't understanding what you are reading.

 

[Art]

Just for some factual clarification the soldiers in Afghanistan are NATO forces NOT UN forces.

As for definitions of terrorism - we've had that discussion here many times before. There can be no usable objective definition of terrorism because many of the blocks the definitions are built on are themselves subjective or the subject of controversy.

A recent example is the US invasion of Iraq; the US gov't believes it acted legally others including the then SG of the UN do not. The status of the death and destruction emanating from the invasion depends to a large degree on the righteousness of the invasion and as it's legality can not be objectively determined neither can the ensuing mayhem be objectively labelled.

In previous discussions on this I have taken the view that 'terrorist' is simply a pejorative word used to denounce one's enemies and if it is to be used it should be applied to specific acts which outrage moral decency.

Using the Irish example above. When the IRA planted bombs in pubs in England this was an act of terrorism however when they killed a couple of dozen soldiers in a battle at Warrenpoint this was not. Similarly when the British army gunned down peaceful protesters in Derry this was an act of terrorism but like the IRA this does not make the entire British Army a terrorist organisation.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The reason you don't buy that is that you think I'm like you. I'm not like you.

No, it's because you actually can't write an objective definition of terrorism which can be applied by everyone to reach the same conclusions about who is a terrorist and who is not. Like I said way up in the [post=1624841]2nd post[/post] in this thread, you have to agree with someone over who the bad guys are to agree with them on who the terrorists are AKA it's a subjective definition. It has nothing to do with me not understanding you. The fact that different people have different points of view is exactly what I said.

I am not the one who has reading comprehension problems, it's you and Cyrus who do, as evidenced by the fact that you both have restated things I've previously said out of the belief that you're contradicting me.

What has happened in the recent part of the thread is that Cyrus has sloppily tried to pretend that a whole bunch of people thinking something is the same thing as objectivity (or he has effectively tried to make that argument without understanding what objectivity is and by making statements and citations that contradict himself.)

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

Using the Irish example above. When the IRA planted bombs in pubs in England this was an act of terrorism however when they killed a couple of dozen soldiers in a battle at Warrenpoint this was not. Similarly when the British army gunned down peaceful protesters in Derry this was an act of terrorism but like the IRA this does not make the entire British Army a terrorist organisation.

I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.

 

[Art]

I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.

I'm not sure I know what you mean Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

 

[Yonoz]

Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

Pretty much. If the organization as a whole has a policy of terrorism then it is a terrorist organization.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Pretty much. If the organization as a whole has a policy of terrorism then it is a terrorist organization.

Yonoz, I don't know what you think about the War on Terror, but based upon your identification of the British Army as a terrorist organization, would you say that having Britain as the closest U.S. ally in the War on Terror is a bit incongruous?

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

your identification of the British Army as a terrorist organization

When was that?

 

[rudinreader]

This thread is SOOOO long.. can someone please get me up to speed on it?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When was that?

I apologize, I must have misunderstood. I thought that was what you were saying here:

Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

Pretty much…

If you don't think that the British Army is a terrorist organization then my question is meaningless, certainly.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This thread is SOOOO long.. can someone please get me up to speed on it?

I think that anyone summarizing the thread wouldn't really be able to do so in an unbiased manner. All there really is to say is that at the beginning several definitions of “terrorist” were presented, then argument ensued over them. 70 posts really isn't that long, especially considering that much of it is quotation of previous posts - it's like a two or three page essay to skim through.

⚛​