Anti-Mosque Hysteria Elsewhere, Too

[Shady]

Aggression does not automatically equate to "terrorism"

Exactly. But people of his mindset want to equate all aggression as terrorism. That way they can claim that we're no better than they are. It's sick and twisted. :angry:

[bloodyminded]

You've hurt your own cause with these attributes and nation state policies. Aggression does not automatically equate to "terrorism", particularly in the context of the day. So not only are you invoking a modern, revisionist political definition for the term (e.g. "state sponsored terrorism"), but you are equating the legal actors to those with no such standing.

Unprovoked international aggression, for the sake of acquiring land and resources, in which perhaps as much as a third of the population is murdered...is terrorism.

Under Reagan, "state terrorism" was deemed the supreme international threat. Of course, Reagan was referring primarily to Libya, and not the far more serious criminal, Suharto.

Correct, as was the policy for many other conflicts and proxy wars. Doesn't mean it was "terrorism".

That's because you prefer the unspoken but often-held definition: "terrorism" is what others do, not what we do. It's not a serious argument, but rather apologetics for mass murder.

This is the final flaw in your logic....international legitimacy.

What was legitimate about it? (keeping in mind that appeals to your patriotic sensibilties don't qualify.)