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
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.
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?
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
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
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.
“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?
“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
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.
using definitions is cheating
He likely intended to cause terror for the victims minority.