ThereBeDragons wrote:The definition of terrorism, as far as I can tell, is any sort of non-pointless violence that isn't war between two states, with the sole exception of armed resistance against armed, uniformed members of an occupying military. Sure, you can condemn it across the board if you're a committed pacifist, but other than that, it just looks hypocritical.
The definition of terrorism and terrorist group has changed over time, and it depends on who is in power.
Criminals ought to be classified a terrorists and treated as such.
fuser wrote:Well from what I know terrorism is basically a tactics through which a non state actor tries to instill enough fear (terror) into a state so that latter conforms to the formers political goal. Of course the problem arises with the negative connotaion of the word, so basically I divide terrorism in two categories, revolutionary terrorism (which can be good not always though) and others, which are always bad.
Sorry, but a State Actor can be a terrorist and engage in terrorism.
The Imperial Roman Catholic Church did.
The US is a terrorist and engages in terrorism. So are/were many 1st World former-Colonial Powers.
What is the real
issue with terrorism?
The real issue is that government does not like to look incompetent and bumbling in the eyes of The People; government never likes to be embarrassed; government never likes to appear as though they are not in total control; and so on.
You cannot permit governments to define who is or isn't a terrorist.
Look at the MEK. US government calls them terrorists, but then 30 years later, hires these "terrorists" to interrogate Iraqi EPWs.