IPO Forum'Menace to World Peace

[Delfos]

I don't want to specify terrorist groups, there's more in the world than that. Private armies is another thing against this sentence, if they are assigned to protect a person of a collective of people it's fine, but if they are hired to shoot whoever they see in 'cause' of someone, or if it reaches an absurd high number of effective, it's promoting violence, the carry of arms, and will lead to what Blackwater done in Iraq.

[Union]

  There's no difference between a private army and a public one. They are both tasked to do the same thing, the use of military force and weapons to accomplish a goal. The same thing Blackwater did, personnel in the US Army did. Both groups are subjected to US laws.

I think a more proper term will be "economic/diplomatic support to armed groups that persist in disrupting peace and violating the safety and sanity of civilians."

[Delfos]

we can come to that agreement. But let me clarify, a private army isn't property of a sovereign nation, of a sovereign leader, that's the difference.

[Union]

make it "private armed groups"

[Delfos]

but then terrorists might not be private armed groups.

Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups that are not included in a sovereign nation's military.

[Union]

are police forces armed groups?

[Delfos]

yes, military isn't the word then,

Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups that are not included in a sovereign nation's armed forces.