OTL im not. i already said that there was terrorism in the course of the war, read my post again. ... im only saying that IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT lol i'm talking about the atomic bombs, which i wanted you to identify why those two bombings were different from the collapse of the twin towers ^^ understand my line of thought now?
"TSA will grope less children"
- Thread starter Rascal
- Start date
No this line states the following:
In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.
Just that. No more no less. But the word Terrorism comes from Terrorisme, which comes from terreo and it means I frighten.
In the dictionary the easiest and simplest definition of terrorism is a group that frightens others -.-
didnt see that post, but yeah i agree on it
[MENTION=1268]The Prince[/MENTION].... dude... the whole world matters... but we cant discuss it all at the same time... im not saying it doesnt matter, im saying its off topic... but if you reeeally wanna include it then fine, ALL the bombings ur speaking of =___= .... vs 9/11 GO.
[MENTION=1268]The Prince[/MENTION].... dude... the whole world matters... but we cant discuss it all at the same time... im not saying it doesnt matter, im saying its off topic... but if you reeeally wanna include it then fine, ALL the bombings ur speaking of =___= .... vs 9/11 GO.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[6][7]
............. right... idk what being bombed is? the fuck? also, the topic is "atomic bombs" so no, the rest of the bombings in the world are not on topic, because i defined the topic. If you would like to change the topic, present it as such.
and to say its just as horrific , are you even disagreeing with me stilll on it being just the same as an act of terrorism???
[MENTION=1543]Core[/MENTION], i disagree on the crossfire, because it would mean the civilian wasnt the target
and to say its just as horrific , are you even disagreeing with me stilll on it being just the same as an act of terrorism???
[MENTION=1543]Core[/MENTION], i disagree on the crossfire, because it would mean the civilian wasnt the target
Funny, Im doing law at the moment, and it most certainly uses the dictionary. Hell, there is even this really big dictionary specially designed for law. Maybe you have heard of it: Oxford Dictionary of Law.
Really, you cant just make up your own definitions for words like that, at best you can interpret their meaning and relevance to something else, but the definition stands.
Really, you cant just make up your own definitions for words like that, at best you can interpret their meaning and relevance to something else, but the definition stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Only the US specifically outlines Harm to befall the civilian population to coerce the government. ONLY THE US.
*leaves the thread*
Only the US specifically outlines Harm to befall the civilian population to coerce the government. ONLY THE US.
*leaves the thread*
Just three definitions pulled from the first google page if you search for a definition of terrorism. While its true the definition is not worded the same everywhere, the essence remains the same. The use or threat of force against persons or property to coerce them into doing what you want them to do.
@Core , if you had read more then just the first 3 sentences of your wikipedia article:
@The Prince , well, whatever. Im going to stand by my use of definitions. There is a reason why there are special law dictionaries. Its not so people can make up their own meaning for a word.
@Core , if you had read more then just the first 3 sentences of your wikipedia article:
@The Prince , well, whatever. Im going to stand by my use of definitions. There is a reason why there are special law dictionaries. Its not so people can make up their own meaning for a word.
None of the definitions you used cited: intentionally harming civilians.
And even the European Law one didnt cite it.
It cited.. incase you cant read more then 2 words:
...given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.
No mention of harming civilians.