so where is the boundary between "wrong" and terrorism? What is it specifically that makes those actions just "wrong", rather than terrorist?
Now that is a 3rd grade taunt if there is one. You asked a stupid question so I gave you a stupid answer. Anymore brain busters?
Mine wasn't a stupid question. You offered that I could refer to dead civilians killed by the IRA as collateral damage (completely missing the point, as usual), so I posited that an Arab may feel the same way about dead civilians at the Pentagon on 9/11 and how you might react to that line of reasoning, and you return with a lame childish taunt.
It is really a matter of opinion. I am kind of bias here as are you so us arguing is never going to get anywhere.
I'm not arguing. Just trying to find specifically what it is that in your opinion makes those acts not terrorist acts. Otherwise it just looks like you don't know, but daddy told you so, so that's what you believe. Look I'll start and make it easy for you. Now I believe they were terrorist acts because they were acts with no military purpose that sought to expolit the emotional fall-out of seeing people (especially civilians) killed in an atempt to change public opinion. Now you turn. I believe they weren't terrorist acts because...... Now don't go for all of them, concentrate on one such as bombing Harrods a week before christmas, with the intention of murdering christmas shoppers. Tell me how that wasn't a terrorist act.
Ave Maria prena de grazia. Su Segnor'es cun tegus. Beneditta ses tui intre tottus is femminas, e Benedittu est su fruttu de is intragnas tuas, amin Gè(sus) Santa Maria mamma de Deus, pregai po nos atturus peccadoris immoi e in s'ora de sa morti nosta, amin Gè(sus)
So in your opinion, where is the line that separates "I'm not saying it's right, but I understand" (i.e. IRA) from the "damn dirty terrorist!!!!" (i.e. Al Qaeda)?