3 ms·
>>You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. the problem with that is defining terrorism. Since the government defines what
by syshum 10y ago
>>You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism.
the problem with that is defining terrorism. Since the government defines what legally constitutes terrorism they exclude themselves from being perpetrators of said activity.
However under the technical definition of Terrorism, which is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." I can make a case that almost every nation state on the planet is guilty of terrorism in some fashion. Leaders of those nation states are then terrorists.
Most people however give a break to using violence if it is "legal" under the laws of a nation, they associate terrorism with the illegal use of violence, instead of the actual definition which is ANY use of violence legal or not "in the pursuit of political aims."
- maze-le 10y agoUnder this definition, protesters hurling stones are terrorists. Not that I am a fan of idiots throwing objects during a demonstration, but I think nobody would reasonably accuse them of terrorism...
- syshum 10y agoThat would depend on the circumstances around the stone throwing and the goals of person(s) throwing the stones. In some instances yes it would be terrorism. Terrorism does not have to involve massive loss of life, or even be life threatening. People today seem to believe terrorism is only when Brown people blow themselves up in a Town Square, or when someone goes on a Mass Shooting rampage under the guise of a religion. Terrorism can take many forms, and is more rampant then people want to acknowledge. People today only want to focus on Islamic terrorism, and exclude almost all other forms as they seem to be more socially acceptable often because they are legal
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]