The former. Although the distinction from "intimidation" would be that the people you are attacking or targeting with violence are not the only people you are trying to intimidate.
Yes. They are in a grey area where you are fighting a war and the argument can be made that these deminished the capabilities of the enemy. But you brought them up because they are largely considered not to be legitimate military targets. From that position these were acts of terror.
I brought them up because every war I've ever heard of, starting with the first ever recorded in history, and continuing up until TODAY, in the US-supported Saudi invasion of Yemen, involves the use of force for political ends.
As Bismark said, war is just politics by other means.
When the US Army stormed the beach on D-Day and shot Sgt. Schmidt and Private Gunter to death... it wasn't b/c they hated Sgt. Schmidt and Private Gunter and wanted them to die; it was because they wanted to force the German high command to surrender, and killing enough 10s of 1000s of random German soldiers would eventually achieve that political goal.
Same with dropping fire bombs on cities and roasting babies in thier cribs by the 1000s. Burn enough cities, and enough random men/women/chikdren/babies/pets/livestock and eventually the enemy surrenders, because he's fucking terrified of what will happen if he doesn't surrender.
In conclusion, the main difference between a terrorist and a patriot/founding father is winning the war and writing the history books yourself.
It is simply counterproductive to dispose of the word. You can argue that war and terrorism are the same, but that they are the same in many ways does not change the fact that they are different in other ways.
You are denying the differences that are there.
There is undeniably a difference between people forcing their own personal will on others through force and fear, and attacking from the shadows or out of the blue; and the escalation of conflicts from diplomacy to threats to organized group action.
The word "terrorism" belongs in Alice In Wonderland, because it means exactly what we want it to mean at any particular time, but doesn't mean whst we don't want it to mean at inconvenient times.
view the rest of the comments →
wgib ago
I like how NZ prime minister said it was an act of terrorism.
PizzaGate-Is-Real ago
Well, the guy who did it wrote that is an act of terrorism.
wgib ago
I thought for it to be terrorism it had to be an attack against the government, country, or for political reasons
canbot ago
That is not what terrorism is at all. It is, of course, political. But everything is political.
Of the intent is to intimidate them it is terrorism.
Killing these particular people does not accomplish anything, the point is to send a message.
wgib ago
So if your intent is intimidation of a person or group its terrorism?. Or once you use killing as the form of intimidation?
canbot ago
The former. Although the distinction from "intimidation" would be that the people you are attacking or targeting with violence are not the only people you are trying to intimidate.
Approved ago
So... the fire bombing of Dresden and the nuking of Hiroshima were acts of terrorism?
canbot ago
Yes. They are in a grey area where you are fighting a war and the argument can be made that these deminished the capabilities of the enemy. But you brought them up because they are largely considered not to be legitimate military targets. From that position these were acts of terror.
Approved ago
I brought them up because every war I've ever heard of, starting with the first ever recorded in history, and continuing up until TODAY, in the US-supported Saudi invasion of Yemen, involves the use of force for political ends.
As Bismark said, war is just politics by other means.
When the US Army stormed the beach on D-Day and shot Sgt. Schmidt and Private Gunter to death... it wasn't b/c they hated Sgt. Schmidt and Private Gunter and wanted them to die; it was because they wanted to force the German high command to surrender, and killing enough 10s of 1000s of random German soldiers would eventually achieve that political goal.
Same with dropping fire bombs on cities and roasting babies in thier cribs by the 1000s. Burn enough cities, and enough random men/women/chikdren/babies/pets/livestock and eventually the enemy surrenders, because he's fucking terrified of what will happen if he doesn't surrender.
In conclusion, the main difference between a terrorist and a patriot/founding father is winning the war and writing the history books yourself.
canbot ago
It is simply counterproductive to dispose of the word. You can argue that war and terrorism are the same, but that they are the same in many ways does not change the fact that they are different in other ways.
You are denying the differences that are there.
There is undeniably a difference between people forcing their own personal will on others through force and fear, and attacking from the shadows or out of the blue; and the escalation of conflicts from diplomacy to threats to organized group action.
Approved ago
The word "terrorism" belongs in Alice In Wonderland, because it means exactly what we want it to mean at any particular time, but doesn't mean whst we don't want it to mean at inconvenient times.