The cartels are not a state, and if that’s actually your argument that’s absurd
I haven’t said that in the slightest, despite them subsuming the role of the state in some areas they haven’t declared themselves such and don’t have ideology beyond enabling the markets they garner their wealth and therefore power from, and don’t seek to replace officals they can buy out
this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I disagree I think consensus definitions of what constitutes ‘states’ and ‘terrorism’ is important, especially now
I said the violence meets a broad definition of terrorism, you said it meets the narrowest, I asked how you’re defining terms such as ‘non-state actor’ and how exactly you’re quantifying them, instead of answering directly you got aggressive and attacked my motivations for wanting you to clarify your points ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The cartels are not a state, and if that’s actually your argument that’s absurd
I haven’t said that in the slightest, despite them subsuming the role of the state in some areas they haven’t declared themselves such and don’t have ideology beyond enabling the markets they garner their wealth and therefore power from, and don’t seek to replace officals they can buy out
I disagree I think consensus definitions of what constitutes ‘states’ and ‘terrorism’ is important, especially now
well that’s the only way that your digression is relevant to the discussion. why are you like this
I said the violence meets a broad definition of terrorism, you said it meets the narrowest, I asked how you’re defining terms such as ‘non-state actor’ and how exactly you’re quantifying them, instead of answering directly you got aggressive and attacked my motivations for wanting you to clarify your points ¯\_(ツ)_/¯