3 ms·

I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it. I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implica

I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it. I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.." If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square? Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up. Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.

throwaway729 10y ago
No, I agree this is a topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. And I agree with your example. The problem is that a bunch of disparate unorganized attacks can have the same effect as a coordinated intentional terror campaign. At that point, you have to decide whether terror is defined by intent or effect. One Nazi in times square? OK, not terror. A dozen Nazis all across America, even if uncoordinated? Terror. I default to intent but am also liberal in allowing effect to stand in for intent.