Pezzer said:Scary stuff you do to get what you want.
No, because they don't deliberately target civilians, and fight by a the rules of engagement. Terrorism is deliberately targeting the civilian populace with intent to cause terror among it, and so instability in the country strong enough to render them ineffective at whatever it is the terrorists want them to stop doing.odubya23 said:Why is it not terrorism when global powers use fear tactics to manipulate or forcefully control affairs?DrDeath3191 said:Terrorism : Using fear tactics that are not sanctioned by global powers to manipulate or forcefully control affairs.
Because those powers sanction them. They allow it, as long as it meets their interests.odubya23 said:Why is it not terrorism when global powers use fear tactics to manipulate or forcefully control affairs?DrDeath3191 said:Terrorism : Using fear tactics that are not sanctioned by global powers to manipulate or forcefully control affairs.
Not really. In fact, the US and South Africa vetoed a UN resolution to actually define terrorism. There's no agreed upon definition.xmetatr0nx said:No, websters, the US army, navy, airforce,marines, OED, and god knows how many countless other places have already definied terrorism quite well.
Pretty much all violence conducted has the intent of causing terror, which includes military action. By that definition all military organisations, and police forces, would be considered terrorists.Avaholic03 said:Is it not violence with the intent to cause terror? Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
Yes, I heard those satellite-guided missiles are very accurate.odubya23 said:You mean like all the times the US sent bomber raids over Baghdad to enrage the civilians into overthrowing Saddam for us?
Sorry, how long ago was that? Did people even obey rules of engagement then?Or maybe you're refering to when the US moved all those Native Americans, 'to promote the Natives interests despite their inclinations,' I believe was the line?