paulh
There seems to be this belief that because we have a word, Terrorist, that therefore we should also have a one sentence easy definition of what it means that, when applied, easily seperates all the Terrorist organisations from all the Revolutionary ones. I doubt that there is such a definition. And therefore you have to make a decision yourself,

Russ
So we're back to the root: they are terrorists because you say they are...

paulh
or on a communal basis as to what a Terrrorist organisation is. AFAIK Australia defines the IRA as a Terrorist organisation and so do I.

Russ
...or becuase your government says they are.

paulh
I can't help it if someone else doesn't based on their definition of the word. Thats why this is often a futile argument.But to use a statistic on deaths to prove it seems abhorrent to me.. as if there is a specific ratio of dead people that once met excuses a groups actions.

Russ
No, but it may mean they are not terrorists. I have not argued their ration of military vs civilian deaths excluses the IRA's actions and object to your characterization. What I have argued is that it's highly relevant to the question of whether they are terrorists or not. I specifically said their use of force was unjust, except in the beginning; that's a different issue as to whether they are terrorists.