General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Remember George Galloway? Badly beaten in street assault in London [View all]Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)A quick google of terrorism produces the following definition:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Could you please explain to me how war is NOT the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political aims? Is that not what the Israelis are doing in Gaza? Is that not what we did to Saddam Hussein?
A quick google of war produces of the following defintion:A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
Could you please explain to me how what the IRA or Hamas did/do is NOT a state of armed conflict between groups within a nation?
Terrorism and war are both the use of violence in pursuit of controlling land, wealth, and people. AKA the use of violence towards a political goal.
The difference is indeed semantic, though. If we support a violent, non-state group they are soldiers or rebels or freedom fighters. If we disapprove of a violent, non-state group then they are terrorists. Of course states use violence to terrorize dissenting groups into submission ALL THE TIME (ie Ferguson), but semantically they are not "terrorists."
Your line of thinking is thus utterly wrong, the line between terrorism and war is typically a legal distinction, not an ethical one, and the line between the two can be very blurry.