• RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    You are defending the Houthi in your previous comment. The fact is no innocents would be harmed in Yemen had they not started the civil war or attacked cargo vessels.

    National militaries are never terrorists.Any action you would label as terrorism is more accurately labeled as an act of war or a war crime.

    • silverlose@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1]

      I’m calling the US forces terrorists because that’s what they deserve. State sanction has nothing to do with it.

      I’ve never defended the Houthis.

      So to clarify, you are saying that all of those women and children are not innocent? Are you saying that UNICEF is lying?

      Insane you think the US killing innocents is far fetched. Like ever hear of agent orange?

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Appeal to authority via dictionaroes isn’t going to prove your point.

        Try making a claim of the US military doing anything that you would call terrorism and try to argue why it would not be a war crime or the justification for a war by the attacked nation. You cannot do this as every example would be a war crime or would justify declaring war.

        • silverlose@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Here’s a list for you to read

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

          Using a definition is not an appeal to authority because definitions are conventions of language, not subjective claims requiring expert validation. An appeal to authority relies on credibility rather than reasoning, while a definition clarifies meaning for effective communication.

          • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            The appeal to authority is the presumption that your dictionary is a valid source for that info. Im sorry if that wasn’t clear in my last post but wikipedia is no different in this regard.

            Nation states do acts of war or causes of war.

            • silverlose@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              What does that even mean? You don’t like the dictionaries or Wikipedia and won’t say why. How are we supposed to talk about anything?

              Yeah if you want to change the definitions of all of the words to fit your narrative, then sure… whatever you say buddy

                • silverlose@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  You’re conflating research with conventions.

                  A dictionary is generally considered a reference source rather than an academic source. While it provides standardized definitions, it does not offer original research, analysis, or scholarly discussion. However, specialized dictionaries (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary or medical/legal dictionaries) can be cited in academic work when defining key terms.

                  Do you expect to find a research paper on the definition of terrorism?