I hadn't realised any had been killed at the scene, I thought they had fled before the armed police arrived - hence all the discussions here about why police aren't equipped with some sorts of weapons normally. Weren't any captured alive?
Maybe because they're European? We are discussing this in English, after all. Is it so strange I'm going to try to use the word terrorist according to the meaning I believe is correct?
Are you saying that in Chinese "terrorist" is synonymous with the murder of large numbers of people, regardless of the reason - i.e. those disturbed men who murdered schoolchildren are terrorists too?
That's not just the Chinese way of defining terrorism and terrorist attacks. In fact, be it the US, UK, EU, or UN, all have given their own version of definition that goes something like this "intended to cause death or serious
bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population
OR compelling a
government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".
According to The UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60, it says "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are
in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"
UN Security Council Resolution 1566 says that terrorism is "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population
or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
Since you brought up Europe, let's see how the EUROPEAN UNION defines terrorism. The European Union defines terrorism for legal/official purposes in Art.1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) says that terrorism is "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population;
OR unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act;
OR seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization."
The reason why I have highlighted those "OR"s is that I'm afraid you can't understand and interpret the ENGLISH language properly. In the English language "OR" means either, meaning as long as the activity carried out fulfills ONE of the definitions, it should be considered an act of terror.
In this case (EU's definition), it says that as long as the act "seriously intimidate a population" OR "unduly compell a government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act" OR "seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization.", it should be considered a terrorist attack.
Now let's look back at the Kunming attack, it killed nearly 30 lives and severely wounded hundreds, it that's not "seriously intimidate a population", I don't know what is. And this, by EU's definition, makes it a terrorist attack.
Also, look what US says. It says that such attacks "can't be justified" in anyway. Get that? No matter how disturbed you are, no matter how troubled you are, no matter how much hatred you have towards the government or society, the moment you lay your hands on innocent civilians and cost their lives and properties, YOU, ARE, A, TERRORIST. And it can't be justified.
Simple as that
