You're viewing a single thread.
From what the manifesto found on him allegedly said, it sounds like his actions were politically motivated. And violence in pursuit of a political goal is kinda the definition of terrorism.
George Washington used violence to advance his political agenda of a sovereign USA. Was George a terrorist?
Yes, why would you think he wasn’t?
Because we often only phrase things as terrorism when it's "bad"
Exactly. The baddies are called 'terrorists'. The term the media uses to describe good terrorists is 'rebels' and sometimes 'freedom fighters'.
It's not terrorism if you win.
History is written by the victors.
Then we'll just have to win.
God damn put that exchange on a t-shirt
4th of July is a national celebration of terrorism.
Yes, he was a good terrorist. He wasn't captured by the enemy.
Luigi was pretty dumb wearing that creepy outfit at a McD. He was captured. Regardless of how you feel about him, being captured was a major failure.
Yeah, Luigi fucked up so bad that he wasn't even the shooter and he still got caught /irony
If he used violence against noncombatants.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks though.
Oh, well then Muad'dib isn't a terrorist because he only killed a mass murderer. Military brass are considered combatants, and Brian ordered thousands to their deaths.
No?
It's very obviously an action made with intent to cause terror. It doesn't have to be political or violent. There is often an aspect of violence and political motivation but it isn't a requirement
It's pretty much always meant violence for an ideology or cause. And the political motivation is very much what makes the difference.
Words do have definitions.
Well then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn't personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.
Well then define non-combatants.
“a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.”
Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.
So is the president, who orders drone strikes on civilians.
The president is not a civilian. They are Commander-in-Chief of the combined armed forces.
So it was a civilian on civilian kill. Not a militant group/gang/mercenary.
If the "battle" was pertaining to healthcare denials, he was currently battling and his group took up battle after he was gone.
The perpetrator of an act of terrorism isn’t part of the definition. They need not be affiliated with a group or military.
I find it curious how many people on Lemmy were gleefully posting about CEOs and billionaires being scared because of this attack, and then to see push-back about the label of terrorism (where fear is part of the outcome, hence the name).
The saying is “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” right?
Its wildly overused though isnt it. Anyone can say almost anything and claim its political. And in the case of your definition, governments leverage terrorism on many of us on a day to day basis. Every protest met with force is terrorism, by that definition you proffered. So do we have a right of self defense against politically motivated violence?
It's usually applied to a non state actor, not a government.
The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, for example, isn't generally considered a terrorist attack.
"Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims."
From the article you cited
using definitions is cheating
He likely intended to cause terror for the victims minority.