Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.
That is also an act of war. National militaries don't commit acts of terrorism. They commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the justification of war aka causus belli.
You missed the key word there which was should be.
Attacking a hospital is outright terrorism imo and has no place in war. Attack a supply depot or some other strategic point but a fucking hospital? A place dedicated to treating any human being regardless of politics, status, etc. blown up.
Dogs. The lot of them. May the toll of the war bell ring loudest and the longest among them and each of their supporters.
No I didn't miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.
If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That's because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.
There's no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.
Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.
Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?
I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.
What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn't a word.
Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.
Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.
Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)
You know what they meant.
You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.
If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don't actually have one.
Is that a big enough vocab for you
It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.
By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.
We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things
No we were an invading army
Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.
You can spend all day yelling at them.
I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.
It's your move, do you argue against the factual definition?
First you didn't not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren't authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.
You are right I did forget here you go.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ter·ror·ist
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
Similar:
bomber
arsonist
incendiary
gunman
assassin
desperado
hijacker
revolutionary
radical
guerrilla
urban guerrilla
subversive
anarchist
freedom fighter
insurrectionist
insurrectionary
adjective
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"
You'll note nowhere on that list of synonyms are terms used for militaries. That's not by accident. It's because national militaries aren't terrorist groups.
Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you
TBF it is called the Lingua Franca. Obviously French is correct.
Sorry, what is called the Lingua Franca? I missed which part you're referencing
I only made the French comment because the French government has an official entity granted the authority to define the official French language.
Regardless the point is a dictionary does not define words but rather describes how they are used. Even if it covered national militaries, which it does not, it wouldn't support your claim. In fact it would be an "appeal to authority"
Your reference to academic debate in a previous comment is hilarious. Academics know how to stay on topic.
The original comment you replied to was referencing Israel's behavior as terroristic. You provided a counter argument that nation states cannot conduct terrorism based on the definition of the term terrorism. When provided with evidence supporting the opposing claim, you say the evidence is not valid because it is not authoritative. You then say there is no authoritative source for such evidence. You then use a classic goal post argument method of saying, "even if your argument is invalid, that doesn't work because x," rather than focusing on the original argument. You also misuse appeal to authority. Appeal to authority as a fallacy is only a fallacy when the item in question isn't explicitly defined by that authority. When you moved the goal post, you operated under the assumption of your continued argument that dictionaries are authoritative. However, your language is imprecise enough that you're going to claim you didn't make that assumption.
That is not proper academic debate method. That is political debate method. This is the kind of shit that makes it difficult to make meaningful progress today. But hey, since we're not doing proper academic debate anyway, I'll indulge in some ad hominem. You're a terrible person for trying to confound a serious issue with irrelevant pedantic arguments and arguments in bad faith. Fuck off. No one cares if "terrorism" - as defined by you as some authority on words - can be applied to nation states. A nation state committed an act meant to cause terror in civilians (in order to take their land). People understood that as the intent, which is the purpose of words anyway.
Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.
That is also an act of war. National militaries don't commit acts of terrorism. They commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the justification of war aka causus belli.
You missed the key word there which was should be.
Attacking a hospital is outright terrorism imo and has no place in war. Attack a supply depot or some other strategic point but a fucking hospital? A place dedicated to treating any human being regardless of politics, status, etc. blown up.
Dogs. The lot of them. May the toll of the war bell ring loudest and the longest among them and each of their supporters.
No I didn't miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.
If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That's because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.
There's no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.
Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.
Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?
I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.
What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn't a word.
Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.
Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.
Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)
You know what they meant.
You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.
If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don't actually have one.
Is that a big enough vocab for you
It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.
By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.
We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things
No we were an invading army
Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.
You can spend all day yelling at them.
I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.
It's your move, do you argue against the factual definition?
First you didn't not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren't authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.
You are right I did forget here you go.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ter·ror·ist
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
Similar:
bomber
arsonist
incendiary
gunman
assassin
desperado
hijacker
revolutionary
radical
guerrilla
urban guerrilla
subversive
anarchist
freedom fighter
insurrectionist
insurrectionary
adjective
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"
You'll note nowhere on that list of synonyms are terms used for militaries. That's not by accident. It's because national militaries aren't terrorist groups.
Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you
TBF it is called the Lingua Franca. Obviously French is correct.
Sorry, what is called the Lingua Franca? I missed which part you're referencing
I only made the French comment because the French government has an official entity granted the authority to define the official French language.
There is also ones for other languages.
Regardless the point is a dictionary does not define words but rather describes how they are used. Even if it covered national militaries, which it does not, it wouldn't support your claim. In fact it would be an "appeal to authority"
Okay, I'm out, have fun troll.
Your reference to academic debate in a previous comment is hilarious. Academics know how to stay on topic.
The original comment you replied to was referencing Israel's behavior as terroristic. You provided a counter argument that nation states cannot conduct terrorism based on the definition of the term terrorism. When provided with evidence supporting the opposing claim, you say the evidence is not valid because it is not authoritative. You then say there is no authoritative source for such evidence. You then use a classic goal post argument method of saying, "even if your argument is invalid, that doesn't work because x," rather than focusing on the original argument. You also misuse appeal to authority. Appeal to authority as a fallacy is only a fallacy when the item in question isn't explicitly defined by that authority. When you moved the goal post, you operated under the assumption of your continued argument that dictionaries are authoritative. However, your language is imprecise enough that you're going to claim you didn't make that assumption.
That is not proper academic debate method. That is political debate method. This is the kind of shit that makes it difficult to make meaningful progress today. But hey, since we're not doing proper academic debate anyway, I'll indulge in some ad hominem. You're a terrible person for trying to confound a serious issue with irrelevant pedantic arguments and arguments in bad faith. Fuck off. No one cares if "terrorism" - as defined by you as some authority on words - can be applied to nation states. A nation state committed an act meant to cause terror in civilians (in order to take their land). People understood that as the intent, which is the purpose of words anyway.