Intergalactic Summit

Open and definitive answer to what?

My point is, what you think of as "Terrorists" (IE Minmatar rebelling), others see as freedom fighters, including me. So yes, it does make them better than your description.

It would seem you fail to understand how the two terms play in the rest of the cluster. Or, really, what the two terms even actually mean.

A 'terrorist' is someone who engages in violence in order to cause fear and public panic, so that pressure is applied to meet their political demands. They commonly attack non-combatants and civilian populations whose only connection to, or ability to respond to those demands, is the political pressure they can exert. An example would be if a bunch of Gallente started detonating explosives in the middle of civilian populations on Amarr stations of in Amarr cities, with a stated goal of forcing the Empire to abandon its alliance with the State.

A 'freedom fighter', by contrast, is one who engages in violence in order to promote the self-determination of a population or segments of a population, normally his own, who do not have self-determination under the current order. This is generally seen as a beneficial goal, even among the majority of the State's political class, who understand that the words 'freedom' and 'chaos' are not, in fact, synonyms, and recognize that the Caldari State's war against the Federation began as a war for self-determination.

While many 'freedom fighters' resort to terrorism in their struggle, it's also entirely possible for 'freedom fighters' to limit their activities to legitimate military targets—which includes heads of State, especially when on a military vessel surrounded by their military honor guard. In fact, as most 'freedom fighters' oppose a significantly more militarily powerful force, if they do conduct legitimate asymmetric warfare without engaging in terrorist activities, the reason for those tactics is that they specifically do put a high value on individual lives, and take great pains to avoid civilian casualties—military casualties, of course, even in an asymmetric war, are not 'murders'. Moreover, in these situations, they will often have exhausted the political options they believe are reasonable, and generally have a very public, accessible, and highly subjective piece of documentation that lays out the steps taken to resolve the situation peacefully, and makes the case for why the status quo is an oppressive system. This documentation, which will be as easily available as they can make it, will also explain why the (subjectively, at least) oppressive system is tantamount to a declaration of war on the part of those in power.

'Sinner', of course, is an entirely subjective determination, made by those in a position of authority over your religion—at least until such time as it can be proven to be a direct determination made by God. That, however, would first require God himself be proven to exist.

I was just going to assume she's lost her mind and any explanation is not worth the effort of figuring out. Such as with you.

Perhaps its because few have ever actually talked to me about my beliefs over the last six to nine months? I'll keep that to myself, though. Am I mad? Probably. Am I unstable? Most likely.

I'm sorry that I wasn't around to ask you about your beliefs, madam. You sound lonely. I hope you get your sanity and stability back.

Mine wasn't the first betrayal.



I'm far from lonely! I have voices! In my head! Not really, but its an old joke.

I never said her beliefs were not valid due to them causing violence.

Well, as someone who's certainly not an Amarr loyalist and has enjoyed drinking with you in the past, I'll bite: what was?

Of course it's an act of violence. That is not what I find disagreeable.

It was an act of violence against the newly crowned head of the Amarr Empire, my home and the state upon which almost everyone I hold dear depends upon for their security and prosperity.

It's not just violence, it's personal.