Definition of terrorism

[leo-rcc]

So you say the Nuclear bombs were not an act of terror but the V1 and V2 were? How are they different? And what about Dresden? Guernica?

Because the V1 and V2 were designed more to cause terror, their capacity to damage, their precision were minimal ... other weapons could have damaged their targets better therefore thy were essentially weapons of terror.

So now you make an arbitrary distinction between based on their effectiveness.

The nuclear bombs, at least in the first instance, were not and were used to SAVE lives (those of US soldiers) and to bring the war to a much more rapid conclusion than otherwise is likely to have happened.

By use of fear, what is the definition of terror.

Like it or not (whether you agree with me or not) that point of view makes sense ... it just happens not to be one you prefer.

Preference has nothing to do with it. You change definitions of terrorism because you seem to think that because something helped save lives for one side it suddenly is no longer to be regarded as a terrorist method. It isn't.

I haven't mentioned Dresden or the other place.

No I did, these were questions to you. Because you said if it is done in a war it is not an act of terrorism, and Dresden and Guernica certainly were an act of terrorism. Terrorism is a methodology, not an ideology. The outcome of a terrorist attack no matter how large the scale does not alter the fact that it is a terrorist attack.