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
Comment on Well, I guess that settles it
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 month ago
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.
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 should was at fault for hundreds of 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.
“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
Its wildly overused though isnt it. Anyone can say almost anything and claim its political.
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.
He likely intended to cause terror for the victims minority.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 month ago
George Washington used violence to advance his political agenda of a sovereign USA. Was George a terrorist?
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 1 month ago
It’s not terrorism if you win.
babybus@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
History is written by the victors.
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Then we’ll just have to win.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Yes, why would you think he wasn’t?
DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Because we often only phrase things as terrorism when it’s “bad”
yannic@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Exactly. The baddies are called ‘terrorists’. The term the media uses to describe good terrorists is ‘rebels’.
imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
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.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 month ago
Yeah, Luigi fucked up so bad that he wasn’t even the shooter and he still got caught /irony
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
If he used violence against noncombatants.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks though.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 month ago
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.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
The US generally holds that only foreign individuals and organisations can be terrorists. So if Luigi can be charged with terrorism, so can the KKK.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 month ago
4th of July is a national celebration of terrorism.