Have you ever thought that maybe terrorism is, in itself flawed as a word? Because there are lots of different perception on who's terrorist and who's countering it. tell me what you think. Also is terrorist some kind of propaganda type word? implying that there is no such thing is terrorist in general.
What come first? Does an attacker of a terror group is a terrorist, or a group is a terrorists group for using terror?
Your English is a little broken here, so I want to make sure I'm deciphering the questions correctly: "Is an attacker from a terror group a terrorist? Or is a group that uses terror a terrorist group for using terror?" If those are the questions, then for the first one it depends if they're doing something for a personal vendetta or if it's to further the goals of the group. If it's the former, then they're more of a "lone wolf" case. If it's the latter, then it depends to what extent the group incites and promotes violence toward a cause. They can say all they want about how evil X is and why, but it becomes a terrorist organization when there's a call for violent action against X.
If these *insert title here* beduians attack a base, is it a legit fighting move, or a terror move?
In that case, terror may be a byproduct of the "legit" violence.
All I can say is, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Indeed. The US Army and CIA are on Iran's terrorist organization list.
Are you blaming EmprorPlapatine in terrorist activty, Punisher?! Well, i wont be suprised if you are correct...
There is a diffrunte between hostile organization and terrorist group your majesty. Iran put the CIA and the US army on there "enemy list". The kurds rebel are teerorists for them for one example.
