Originally Posted by archie63
What i get from your reasonig (and i could be wrong) is the fact that you want to call "other" terrorist before call the "so called terrorist" with that name. So be it if you like, but then please don't deny the fact that Bin Laden was a "terrorist".
Oh well deny it if you like.
P.s. The examples you bring, althought correct, are 60 years old, and the world is changed by chance
My point is, should the historical record then classify them as terrorist attacks? Even brining in the current example of the home being raided CAN be seen as a terrorist attack. Hell, I wanted to use the criteria provided.
Really, my reasoning behind all of this is to show the complete ambiguity of the term politically and historically. At no point in this thread have I stated, that bin Laden is not guilty of a crime. I call it mass murder. And I'd be completely happy at leaving it with that. My point, is that terrorism, is far too subjective a term and the term alone seems to either incite unneccessary fear or provide a catch all label.