IMO if you support US you should want our troops home. Here is why. The war in Iraq c

I don't think that a definition based on the method (use of violence) or the statue of combatant (civilian- non uniform, soldier- uniformed) can provide an answer. To find a definition that covers most cases, it has to concentrate on what the goals of those actions are. Let's concentrate on what is not terrorism and then may be it becomes easier to see what is terrorism.

Do you think that French partisans fighting against Nazis in civilian clothes were terrorists? How about if there is a military coup in USA, do you think that the people who will fight against the Army are terrorists and if not, why?

 

The "eye of the beholder" comes to mind here.

 

Wrong answer.

 

People fighting against an armed force, explicitly not targeting civilians for defined political reasons/goals or in defense are militants not terrorists.

 

What do you mean by militants? Many times people are using militants and terrorists as interchangeable words. By militants, do you mean partisans, irregular army?

 

Militants are militants, I've given my definition in above post.
People using/considering militants = terrorists are wrong, I cant help them.

 

Well said Webmaster you are 100% correct, though alot of people get mixed up with militants and terrorists, which is sad.

 

I liking more given you agree one person's militant is another's freedom fighter. It is all about perspective in my opinion when trying to define these things.

 

freedom fighter may or may not be the right word...when trying to suppress the people into using a specific law or taking away inalienable rights, are they still a "freedom fighter"?

 

You are assuming that there is something negative in the word militant but in reality and I assume as webmaster wants to use it, it only means a person involved in Arm conflict who does not belong to regular army.
People will look at such person or group positively or negatively depending on their point of view.

The Webmaster

In your previous definition, you also used the use of violence against civilians as a definition for terrorism. It is a common knowledge that Allay forces used the bombing of cities and targeting of civilian population as a mean to pressure Germany during WWII. USA also used the 2 atomic bombs on Japanese cities with no military value to end the war against Japan, do you think that such actions are terrorism?

 

Germans also bombed london civilian populations. It was a war afterall. Germans targeted russian civilians. Russians targeted german civilians. It was an actual war.

Both cities had strategic military value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_during_World_War_II

 

So do you think Germans or Russians were terrorists? What does actual war mean?

War

• 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
• 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
• 3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
• 4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

What is a non actual war?

 

I'd say a lot of what happens in the name of religious extremism is not a war, right? Blowing up buses, markets, without a perceivable military goal, chopping off heads of random people, etal.

No. WW2 - a bad analogy on your part - was declared war nation against nation. I don't think you can apply terrorism to any of the countries involved in wars that are declared on either side. In the era it was fought in, especially, there was no way to avoid civilian casualties. They were just dropping bombs everywhere. Every side was. Each attack had a military objective - military bases are near cities. I don't think you can say, honestly, that either side was bombing or blowing up civilians just for the hell of it. It defies the very nature of trying to defeat another country.

 

Are you saying that definition of war in dictionary is not correct and all people, groups and nations should come to lorien, so you can decide what is war or not?

 

Sure. If you'd like me to explain things to you more often; please, do, feel free to ask! I'm here ya.

I'm saying that a one sentence definition in a dictionary is not adequate - its not even intended to be. If you feel that "war" as a concept can and should be explained in 10-12 words then that's your failing. Not mine.

I don't think the writers of the dictionary would include 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' as a valid aspect of war. Do you?

 

So what is your definition of war with exceptions of somethings I like to be war and somethings I don't want to be war depending on how I feel on that day and what serves my purpose.

Please feel free to give us a definition for war.

 

I think I've been doing that, but you haven't been reading. I take it that's correct, gworld?

I don't think the writers of the dictionary would include 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' as a valid aspect of war. Do you?

Agree or disagree? I know this is the game you are playing, so please do help me out here.

 

Some people actually like serious discussions, if you are not capable of it then nobody asked you to participate. Eating breakfast, smoking a cigarette, going to pick nick are not war either but doesn't help to define what war is.

You said that definition of war in dictionary is wrong then tell us what definition of war should be and not what things are not war. If you don't know and just like to post nonsense then stop wasting our time.

 

When did i say this, gworld, I believe my specific quote was:

Now, care to try again:

I don't think the writers of the dictionary would include 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' as a valid aspect of war. Do you?

You seem to have an awfully difficult time with a very simple question.

 

So do you agree that this definition of war is correct?

War

• 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
• 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
• 3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
• 4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

What I am discussing with webmaster is to find a definition for terrorism. to define war is part of that discussion. If you are interested in serious discussion then you are welcome, otherwise don't waste our time.