Definition of terrorism

[Kyuuketsuki]

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?

Fair enough but if that is the case then you presumably would accept that all governments work on the basis of terror?

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.

See my previous comment ... quite possibly it isn't inconsistency but branding everything a government does as terror (or even potentially so) makes terrorism defined in that way a pretty fucking useless definition.

You used them to Giff and I'm not interested in debating them (I don't even know what the second is).

So don't debate the events, but address the point I made after them.

I don't agree for reasons already made ... just because you've given answers doesn't mean I accept them as right or that I believe they invalidate mine. I am not a [non-violent] pacifist, I believe humans are an inherently violent species and that peace needs to be enforced (yes I am aware that sounds like contradiction) and that nv-pacifism can only exist because somebody else is willing to stand the watch and provide them the luxury of doing so. I do not believe military actions typically fall into the category of terror (regardless of whether they cause fear) when the primary aim is the destruction of incapacitating of a military target or when that action [potentially] has positive significant military consequences.

Kyu