You're viewing part of a thread.
Oh really? So all of the sources talking about woman and children dying, they weren’t innocent?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2025_United_States_attacks_in_Yemen
And I love the “in this case” because you know damn well there’s tons of collateral damage caused by US forces. Or as I think I’m going to start calling them, terrorists.
You made up a story where only one person was a target and everyone else was innocent. That is not a reflection of reality and your own source proves that.
Why are you backing the instigator of the civil war if you are concerned with innocent lives?
My point is that if you kill innocents as acceptable collateral damage, it doesn’t make you morally superior. It’s pretty much the same as them, just the other side.
I’m not “backing the instigator of the civil war” I’m saying you can’t support either group of terrorists.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
I explain it in my first sentence.
We don’t use dictionaries we use academic sources.
Also you realize that the Wikipedia article is full of sources right?
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?