Could you direct me to an example of what you believe should be excluded because it is an attack on military?
Well you forced me to dig into the website even more and it only gives more problems for its legitimacy.
It comes down to what criteria the website uses and what you/I believe is terror. From the website.
Criteria 1
The act must be aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal. In terms of economic goals, the exclusive pursuit of profit does not satisfy this criterion. It must involve the pursuit of more profound, systemic economic change.
Criteria 2
There must be evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) than the immediate victims. It is the act taken as a totality that is considered, irrespective if every individual involved in carrying out the act was aware of this intention. As long as any of the planners or decision-makers behind the attack intended to coerce, intimidate or publicize, the intentionality criterion is met.
Criteria 3
The action must be outside the context of legitimate warfare activities. That is, the act must be outside the parameters permitted by international humanitarian law (particularly the prohibition against deliberately targeting civilians or non-combatants.
Those are the main criteria they set down. Now the problem comes up.. to be labelled as terror, you only need 2 of the 3 .. or so it seems. They have a "disclaimer" about doubt, and that it is up to the "eyes of the GTD analysts" to define if a incident is a terror act or not. As far as I can see, despite doubt, such acts are still listed as terror incidents.. err okay!
So lets look at just one incident. Ukraine, 2015-09-12. Donetsk region, Zaytseve in the Horlivak district. It was the Armed Forces of Ukraine that made an assault on the city. The GTD criteria met are 1 and 2, but not 3, and yet it is categorised as a terror attack.
Criteria 1, says the act must be in attaining a political, economic, religious or social goal.. err okay, that pretty much describes every armed conflict in history and makes the possible terror.
Criteria 2, says the act must have evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate or convey some other message to a larger audience... again every armed conflict in history.
Criteria 3, says that the action must be outside the context of legit warfare activities... here the attack fails to meet the criteria.
But the people at the GTD, despite failing criteria 3.. lists this as one of the terror attacks in 2015. What?
If you continue looking at others, you find a similar pattern over and over again. Now is that right? Is shelling a military position now suddenly terror in a civil war / or war ?
