Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Oh, and you said that the partisan killing the old man was both a terrorist and not a terrorist.
|
When? :O
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Hang on, I was going to ask:
What if your non-state actor causing a violent act on a non-combatant isn't trying to affect change? What if they are simply doing this act for the sake of it? Say, blowing up a hospital simply for the act of causing terror and panic in the population?
By me, it's terrorism. Causing terror. But if they aren't doing it to affect change with the government or individuals, is it terrorism to you?
|
It’s not terrorism, it’s just random violence. I don’t think that you’d find any groups doing that though. Maybe just some nut opening up on a bunch of people in a shopping mall kind of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708
I just don't see how these people' tactics are not terrorism just because they might have a legitmate grievance.
|
I stopped reading your post after this part because you obviously don’t understand anything that I’ve written. They are terrorists. Terrorists do not have to be bad guys or good guys. I do not personally support terrorism. Re-read my posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator
I think you're all missing the point here.
|
You’re missing the point because we weren’t discussing state sponsorship of terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator
Very similar to calling someone a Conspiracy theorists for not adhering to the established paradigm.
|
No, you still don't know how I stand on global warming and all of that. You're a conspiracy theorist because you support a conspiracy theory. You can be completely correct. You are incapable of understanding other people's posts because you have no concept of objectivity. People are either good or bad from your perspective and no one can discuss something from the middle ground.
Basically you're an idiot.
Hybrid Mode
