There is a huge difference between a person who is willing to die for what they believe and a person who is willing to kill for what they believe. Rule makers who have never tasted their own bloody lip after a taking a punch in the face would probably have difficulty understanding the difference. Fist fights are a microcosm of international relations. If you believe in rational discourse as I do, then you know your opponent establishes the amount of violence required to determine victory. It's a binary equation determined by the actions of the oppressor. In other words, preparedness to respond to an aggressive enemy does not constitute terrorism. Approaching an aggressive enemy in their domain does not constitute terrorism. Defending society against terrorism with deadly force does not constitute terrorism. Unwillingness to retreat in the face of deadly force does not constitute terrorism. This study focuses on the cause of terrorism without considering the causes worth dieing for. Its empirical accuracy belies its civil-imprecision. The study implies all movements are morally equivalent. They are not... and never will be.
ORIGINAL: Its empirical accuracy belies its civil-imprecision. The study implies all movements are morally equivalent. They are not... and never will be.
CORRECTION: Its empirical precision belies its civil-accuracy. The study implies all movements are morally equivalent. They are not... and never will be.
WIKIPEDIA: Accuracy is the degree of veracity while precision is the degree of reproducibility. The analogy used here to explain the difference between accuracy and precision is the target comparison. In this analogy, repeated measurements are compared to arrows that are fired at a target. Accuracy describes the closeness of arrows to the bullseye at the target center. Arrows that strike closer to the bullseye are considered more accurate. The closer a system's measurements to the accepted value, the more accurate the system is considered to be.