• NoIWontPickaName
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

      • NoIWontPickaName
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        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

          • NoIWontPickaName
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              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.

              • NoIWontPickaName
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                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”

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  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”

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    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.