• Peaty@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    No I didn’t miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.

    If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That’s because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.

    There’s no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.

    • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.

      Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?

      I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.

      • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn’t a word.

        Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.

        • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.

          Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)

        • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know what they meant.

          You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.

          If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don’t actually have one.

          Is that a big enough vocab for you

        • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.

          By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.

          We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things

            • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.

              You can spend all day yelling at them.

              I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.

              It’s your move, do you argue against the factual definition?

              • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                First you didn’t not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren’t authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.

                • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are right I did forget here you go.

                  Dictionary
                  Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
                  ter·ror·ist
                  noun
                  a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
                  “four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists”
                  Similar:
                  bomber
                  arsonist
                  incendiary
                  gunman
                  assassin
                  desperado
                  hijacker
                  revolutionary
                  radical
                  guerrilla
                  urban guerrilla
                  subversive
                  anarchist
                  freedom fighter
                  insurrectionist
                  insurrectionary
                  adjective
                  unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
                  “a terrorist organization”

                  • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’ll note nowhere on that list of synonyms are terms used for militaries. That’s not by accident. It’s because national militaries aren’t terrorist groups.

                • TheBeege@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you

                  • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There is also ones for other languages.

                    Regardless the point is a dictionary does not define words but rather describes how they are used. Even if it covered national militaries, which it does not, it wouldn’t support your claim. In fact it would be an “appeal to authority”