Definition of terrorism

[leo-rcc]

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?

No not on their basis but it is in their repertoire. Like I stated before terror is a methodology that can be implemented, regardless if it is right or wrong to do so.

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.

Show me where I have stated that everything a government does is terrorism. That is not what I have said.

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.

No, but you have made claims about my positions though you haven't pointed to a single post of mine to substantiate the assertion that I use terrorism in an inconsistent fashion.

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 am not a pacifist either, what does that have to do with this topic?

I do not believe military actions typically fall into the category of terror (regardless of whether they cause fear)

It is not that they cause fear, but they use the fear to achieve their goals. That is the crux of terrorism. Scale, effectiveness, justification, all irrelevant to the definition.

when the primary aim is the destruction of incapacitating of a military target or when that action [potentially] has positive significant military consequences.

That is exactly what terrorists attacks try to achieve as well. So where is the distinction?

IF the truth be known I think the two cities were a test ... the US army wasn't engaged in terror as such and yes US lives were saved but what they really wanted to know was what effect a nuclear strike would have on a real target.

I believe that the US wanted the 2 bombs as a test case as well. I don't even think the bombings were wrong in themselves, as they did save a lot of suffering on both sides (A land war between Japan and the US would be a battle until there were no Japanese left). But I still maintain they were acts of terrorism.