Comment by parthdesai
11 hours ago
At this rate, if the official religion of USA was a different one, they would be categorized as a terrorist state
11 hours ago
At this rate, if the official religion of USA was a different one, they would be categorized as a terrorist state
It is, just not in the USA. This is the textbook definition of terrorism:
"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
It does not get much clearer than that.
That is the near-universal definition, but I don't think it captures the essence of it.
The difference between terrorism and warfare is the degree of top-down control. Warfare is done in uniform, by people in a hierarchy.
The reason for the distinction is that there is somebody taking responsibility. You end a war by agreeing to a treaty with the top level. You can hold the top level responsible for violations of the rules of war.
Terrorism, by contrast, is harder to stop. There is no authority to end it. Even state-sponsored terrorism need not end when the sponsoring state agrees; they can find a different sponsor.
That doesn't make one morally worse or better than the other. It's just a distinction worth drawing, because it governs how you go about bringing an end to it.
The US law for terrorism is about attacks against it, and they combat those differently from how they'd go about fighting a war against a conventional enemy.
What the US is doing to Iran is almost certainly unlawful, but I think that calling it "terrorism" obscures the fact that there is an authority to end it. The attack is legal in its own terms -- it at least has a law, which terrorists do not.
Again, not better. Arguably, much worse. Which is why I find the definition problematic.
You're conflating terrorism with irregular warfare. The Oradour-sur-Glane massacre was terrorism committed by regular forces; the French resistance blowing up a German supply train was non-terrorist action by irregular forces.
The US has constantly been at war for like 250 years. How can you conclude war is easier to stop than terrorism? Can we make the USA stop waging war? Because that would be a nice change.
Just take Iran, they agreed to a treaty with the top level of the USA. But the next top level ripped up the agreement and now is threatening total destruction of their civilization. Should Iran sign a new deal with that guy, and what's to stop him from tearing that up and bombing them again?
2 replies →
[flagged]
With the same logic, you could also justify bombing white house since they're clearly using weapons to destroy civilian infrastructure in other countries, and also murder civilians. That would be classified as a terror act though.
So what's the difference in your eye?
[flagged]
6 replies →
It's called terrorism only when it comes from a certain region. Otherwise it's sparkling military action.
It's not about definitions or categorisations. It's about what reprisals there are for labelling them a terrorist state.