4 ms·

In the modern day, the difference between civilian and terrorist is so blurred (not only in factually but also in time - fon't forget, USA's founding fathers we

In the modern day, the difference between civilian and terrorist is so blurred (not only in factually but also in time - fon't forget, USA's founding fathers were terrorists, if you asked the UK monarchy) even humans often cannot tell. Do we trust AIs to?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
> don't forget, USA's founding fathers were terrorists, This gets repeated all the time, but that doesn't make it true. When did the founding fathers deliberately do mass killings of civilians? They basically won by fighting pitched battles with the British. They had diplomatic relations with several countries (Denmark and France being the major ones). There was a command structure with clear lines of authority (Continental Congress -> George Washington -> other commanders). In addition, there was at least an attempt made to follow international laws. They were rebels, yes. However, it was more a coalition of existing colonial governments (especially the elected legislatures) deciding to part ways with the British. By and large, the terrorists of our times are not at all like that. They are not part of a legitimate civilian government fighting an enemy using a formal military organization.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This gets repeated all the time, but that doesn't make it true. You left out the “if you asked the British monarchy” part, which was fairly critical; they were leaders of a rebel movement which clearly included terrorists (both by modern standards and, even more officially, in terms of armed combatants deviating from then-current norms of warfare, by what might be imputed to be the standards of the time, though of course the term “terrorist” had not yet been applied as a proper term for those behind the still-in-the-future Terror in Revolutionary France, much less evolved to it's more general sense.)
- trhway 9y ago
  Great debating club mental yoga. Now, what can you say about Mandela?
- jim-jim-jim 9y ago
  There are US-designated "terrorist" groups that don't deliberately target civillians and function in a manner similar to traditional armies. Hezbollah comes to mind.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

> don't forget, USA's founding fathers were terrorists, This gets repeated all the time, but that doesn't make it true. When did the founding fathers deliberately do mass killings of civilians? They basically won by fighting pitched battles with the British. They had diplomatic relations with several countries (Denmark and France being the major ones). There was a command structure with clear lines of authority (Continental Congress -> George Washington -> other commanders). In addition, there was at least an attempt made to follow international laws. They were rebels, yes. However, it was more a coalition of existing colonial governments (especially the elected legislatures) deciding to part ways with the British. By and large, the terrorists of our times are not at all like that. They are not part of a legitimate civilian government fighting an enemy using a formal military organization.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> This gets repeated all the time, but that doesn't make it true. You left out the “if you asked the British monarchy” part, which was fairly critical; they were leaders of a rebel movement which clearly included terrorists (both by modern standards and, even more officially, in terms of armed combatants deviating from then-current norms of warfare, by what might be imputed to be the standards of the time, though of course the term “terrorist” had not yet been applied as a proper term for those behind the still-in-the-future Terror in Revolutionary France, much less evolved to it's more general sense.)
trhway 9y ago
Great debating club mental yoga. Now, what can you say about Mandela?
jim-jim-jim 9y ago
There are US-designated "terrorist" groups that don't deliberately target civillians and function in a manner similar to traditional armies. Hezbollah comes to mind.