Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasczak  The use of, or threatened use of, force or violence by civilians or non-sanctioned individuals or groups against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.
If you would, lets stick with the rule rather than the exceptoins to the rule for starters until we establish some common ground. |
I find the use of the term 'non-sanctioned' in your definition interesting - is this designed purely to excuse anythign 'sanctioned' by a Government from being defined as terrorism? If not, then my question is 'sanctioned by whom'?
Secondly, where does the role of providing training for, arming and funding so-called terrorist acts by others fall into this schema? Is it part of the terrorism too? If not, why not?
And thirdly, so we can confirm that there is no difference between acts of violence, as far as them being terrorism is concerned, on any criteria based on the particular ideologies of the parties involved. In other words, whether the so-called terrorist holds for example, communist or democratic principles dear as he waves his flag of resistance, is irrelevant to the question of whether he is a terrorist?