You’re right, the text itself doesn’t spell out any exemptions.
I guess I was just (badly) trying to express my skepticism that our own media and/or society at large would be willing to apply this definition to our own local governments or government-adjacent orgs, even if they met the criteria.
Which wasn’t really the point of this post anyhow I suppose… I’ll shut my trap now :)
when there are actually no exemptions present in a text, stating that a specific (maybe usually too common) exemption is not there, this statement is not only formally correct, but will be seen by archeologists in far future as a hint that such exemptions i.e. in laws were not only common, but also very known to the wide public. they will come to the conclusion that the public society didnt defend themselves against terrorists either due to fear of their terror or due to <censored to not “contaminate” the timeline>. either way they were doomed to what was inevitable to happen.
(i am preparing to write a scifi story where timelines are an important point while the whole story only tells about one of them. thats the context of my comment ;-) )
What do you mean by exemption? I just checked and I don’t see any exemption mentioned there.
I was implying that by the description there, we should legitimately consider the people making up certain governments terrorist groups.
I don’t disagree. Still not sure what motivated your idea that there was exemptions here.
You’re right, the text itself doesn’t spell out any exemptions.
I guess I was just (badly) trying to express my skepticism that our own media and/or society at large would be willing to apply this definition to our own local governments or government-adjacent orgs, even if they met the criteria.
Which wasn’t really the point of this post anyhow I suppose… I’ll shut my trap now :)
Oh I see. Yes the media as well as who manipulates the media would be responsible for manipulating the perspective for sure. I agree with you there.
when there are actually no exemptions present in a text, stating that a specific (maybe usually too common) exemption is not there, this statement is not only formally correct, but will be seen by archeologists in far future as a hint that such exemptions i.e. in laws were not only common, but also very known to the wide public. they will come to the conclusion that the public society didnt defend themselves against terrorists either due to fear of their terror or due to <censored to not “contaminate” the timeline>. either way they were doomed to what was inevitable to happen.
(i am preparing to write a scifi story where timelines are an important point while the whole story only tells about one of them. thats the context of my comment ;-) )
I do not follow at all.