Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
By that interpretation of “group of people” all war is terrorism and therefore discussion of terrorism is meaningless in this context.
I don’t believe that Hezboalh meets the intent of “group of people” definition. They are targets in a war which is why I prefer the 1999 proposed definition I linked as it identifies considerations for war.
I also think the “for political purposes” is inclusive to all 3 groups and not only to the last group.
So to be terrorism it needs to be intended, against civilians, a group of people or particular persons, AND needs to be for political purposes.
I’d argue that these attacks were for a military purpose not a political one but certainly your opinion that it’s political in nature is reasonable.
|
I read that statement as a series of ORs, not ANDs so perhaps that's the issue.