I figure by defining terrorist accurately as an actor (typically part of a greater conspiracy or organization though there have been a rising number of independent terrorists lately) who, without any realistic chance of being able to achieve meaningful military or strategic victories over an enemy army or police force, resorts to trying to manipulate public opinion through fear by attacking targets of little or no strategic value with the specific aim of creating as much carnage as possible, killing as many innocent civilians as possible, and/or striking a highly visible and symbolically important piece of property, in as spectacular and public a way as possible, thereby scaring average ordinary non-combatant civilians into thinking they could be next and influencing them to exert pressure on public officials or elected representatives to change some facet of foreign or domestic policy.
The Islamic State isn't any of those things. It is, or at least aspires to be as its name clearly implies, a sovereign state. They have real military power and the ability to pose significant challenges to the state armed forces of Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan. They hold and control a very large area of territory. They are not trying to influence foreign policy. They are not, for example, blowing up Yzidi so that other Yzidi will be scared and change their behavior- they are instead attempting to commit genocide. That might be terrifying, but it is not terrorism. They seek to dominate the world and united the Muslim ulemma under a sharia-ruled Islamic caliphate. Basically once they are conquering and holding on to territory it really doesn't make sense to call them terrorists. Terrorism is a military tactic used by the desperate and weak. It is not just a pejorative term used to describe people who are not nice. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Yeah I'm not faulting you for anything. It's a fine quiz. I just personally find the ubiquitous misuse of this word in the last decade to be interesting and a bit annoying. but not your fault.
To be honest, I don't really see it as "terrorist" either. I see it as rebels trying to take territory. I mean the Syrian opposition would be terrorists by that logic. If you want to know my opinion on the Syrian Civil War, it is neutral between the government and the opposition.
Jackninja5, if that were the case. To just take land in Iraq and Syria, then why do they claim attacks on the Unites States and European nations?
And for the earlier comments. According to Google, a terrorist is "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Although ISIS is a group and many people. I believe the group falls within that definition. Making them a terrorist organization.
Look up to kalbahamut comments. When a city or a region is controlled by a group, this group is not (anymore) terrorist. That doesn't mean they aren't bad guys. Most of the countries above will still use the term because it's easier to sell to the public and shows how hard they refuse to accept/recognize the organization and their occupation.
That being said I don't remember what France's position is by now, after Paris, Nice and other attacks. I'm pretty sure this quiz need an important update..
And for the earlier comments. According to Google, a terrorist is "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Although ISIS is a group and many people. I believe the group falls within that definition. Making them a terrorist organization.
That being said I don't remember what France's position is by now, after Paris, Nice and other attacks. I'm pretty sure this quiz need an important update..