(May 1, 2009 at 6:13 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The way you are using your definition you could declare ALL war to be terrorism and probably throw in the police and the law courts as well.
Courts and police and armies do not use fear in their standard methodology but can and do use it from time to time. Why do you assume I think it is not the case?
(May 1, 2009 at 6:13 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(May 1, 2009 at 5:35 am)leo-rcc Wrote: 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.
And you are using the definition of terror in an inconsistent fashion.
Show me how and where I have done that.
Quote:(May 1, 2009 at 5:35 am)leo-rcc Wrote: 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.
You used them to Giff and I'm not interested in debating them (I don't even know what the second is).
Kyu
So don't debate the events, but address the point I made after them.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
