3 ms·
The most common definition of is usually along the lines of the one I found on google [http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=terrorism ht
by alanstorm 17y ago
The most common definition of is usually along the lines of the one I found on google [http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=terrorism http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&...].
> Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something.
This was a single, possibly mentally unstable, man crashing a plane into a building. He may have thought he was trying to achieve something politically or to force the government to do something, but without any larger organization behind him it seems silly to label this as a domestic terrorist attack. It's giving the guy far more credit than he deserves.
- scott_s 17y agoThat definition says nothing about the perpetrator needing to be a part of an organization. If his act meets the definition - which I think it clearly does - then we have to call it terrorism.
- alanstorm 17y agoI can see your point of view here, but if you're trying to "achieve political aims or to force a government to do something" it's implicit that there's going to be people around after your death to push your agenda, (or that you're going to survive whatever you plan is) to push it forward.
- pyre 17y agoSo which organization was behind the Oklahoma City bombing?
- alanstorm 17y agoThe militia movement in rural parts of the US, which the federal government more or less neutered after the bombing.
- ninjac0der 17y agoReally? On what terms are you privy to this information that the militias were behind the bombing? ... just another casualty to propaganda spreading disinformation.