Originally Posted by
grobblewobble
How do you define terrorism?
Would "trying to kill as many innocent civilians as possible in order to win a political conflict with a nation" be a good definition?
Not really, no. Terrorism doesn't require civilians to be killed at all to be effective; in many cases, the threat of violence alone is sufficient to achieve the terrorists' goals. Terrorism also doesn't, strictly speaking need to be against a nation; it could be against, for example, between religious groups within the same country.
In a more general sense, the jury is out on whether states are even capable of performing terrorist actions--many argue that the behaviour of states is already governed by international laws, and that attributing the idea of terrorism to them is redundant. There isn't really any consensus on this issue.
Originally Posted by
grobblewobble
If yes, then it has already happened. Twice.
Mmm... how do you define "innocent civilians"?
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.