TradeSurplus
?jevind L?ng wrote in message ...

?jevind L?ng
TradeSurplus wrote: [snip]

TradeSurplus
The IRA has also committed both terrorist acts (pub bombings) and non-terrorist acts (shooting paratroopers that attacked nationalist areas while wearing their combat fatigues).

?jevind L?ng
"Attacked nationalist areas"? They shot everyone they saw? In that case

should report them to the British authorities;

TradeSurplus
Reporting them to the authorities is what the Bloody Sunday inquiry is all about, if I'm not mistaken.

The question of justified use of force and terrorism are separate. It is possible to use force unjustly and still not commit terrorism (unless you _define_ terrorism as any unjust use of force). For example the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the French colonization of Vietnam were unjust but they were not terrorism. They used conventional armed forces.

You say international law does not agree with me. Is there a definition of terrorism in international law? Would you like to quote it here?

I said nowhere that the IRA was justified in any of its actions, I just

that not all of its actions necessarily fit the definition of terrorism. I also never said that the IRA was unjustified. Justification is a separate question to terrorism.