@DanielGoldman "Wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality that are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation states." Taken from the Wikipedia definition you used as your source.
Curious about your thoughts on the "regardless of legality or illegality" part, as this would kill off the argument about USA not having legally declared war since WWII, especially since your other source (GlobalResearch) refers to deaths during what they apparently …

@JakobPampBengtsson, the requirement that you use is actually from a second set of bullet points which is not part of the description used by Matusitz.

Additionally, that would mean that you accept ISIS et al. as nation states and therefore must recognize that ITS actions are not acts of terror. It also means that any and all acts of killing taken by a government's military is immune from being called terrorism. US soldiers could go around raping and murdering civilians and it wouldn't be terrorism. Sorry; I call bull shit on definitions that automatically make governments immune from bein…

I cited a source: Matusitz. And if you do not consider ISIS a nation state, then your point is again invalid. You said that it's not terrorism if it's against a nation state: you cited a definition which required the acts to be "committed by a nation state against another nation state."

And the answer to my question is relevant because it indicates a conflict in your acceptance of your definition. Your definition makes the scenario that I mentioned something other than an act of terror. So for the last time, if the President nuked a city without provocation, would it be an act of terror?

"And the answer to my question is relevant because it indicates a conflict in your acceptance of your definition."
No, you're just deflecting. I'm not presenting a position of my own. I'm challenging your position. You answered the SE question, hence you're the one required to defend your answer. Trying to pin a position on me and claiming I'm wrong about my supposed to position has nothing to do with the validity of your position. If you're going to keep doing that this discussion is already over.

No. When you provide work, it's your obligation to defend its validity. I haven't provided an answer, I have questioned yours. I do not need to provide an answer. I do not need to provide an opinion. Those things are completely irrelevant to whether or not your argument holds.

Instead of reading this as an attack on you, understand that this is a critique. Spending time questioning me instead of clearing up criticism about your work is deflection. I've not stated anything about how horrible wars are or how justified they are. I do not claim that your conclusion is automatically wrong. I'm …

"Contrary to what you seem to think, you cannot back someone against a wall just because they make a claim."
I'm not backing anyone up against a wall. I'm questioning your argument, not you as a person.

"Once they justify the claim, as I have done"
I have repeatedly asked you to justify why you:
1) Chose Matusitz as an authority over others
2) Only partially used what we can see from his book

Did you use any information by him other than Wikipedia and the free pages from the book on Google Books? Instead of answering this, which I don't see the point in not answering as you should have a …