3 ms·
The issue is that terrorism is about advancing an ideology. That's the important part. It's not about how terrifying the act was, nor is it about the attacker's
by yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
The issue is that terrorism is about advancing an ideology. That's the important part. It's not about how terrifying the act was, nor is it about the attacker's skin colour (as is rather depressingly hinted at in US discourse).
Ted Bundy terrorised his community, but there was no political aim. He was a sociopath, but not a terrorist.
Anders Behring Breivik terrorised his community, and he had an explicit and clear ideological aim. He's a sociopath, and a terrorist.
- gsk22 6y agoSo in other words, it's an antonym to "senseless violence": as long as the perpetrator has a known agenda (whether implicitly or explicitly stated), it's terrorism? Doesn't that also make things like war and police brutality terrorism? Growing up in the US post-9/11, the word terrorism itself was very political. It was weaponized by successive presidential administrations as a catch-all term for "any person or group the government doesn't like" and repeated endlessly on news broadcasts and in other popular media. Terrorism is our only "justification" for holding people like Ramzi bin al-Shibh without trial for nearly 20 years. The original meaning of the word was lost long ago in popular American discourse, and the state prefers it that way. We still see that today, as prominent American political figures label peaceful protesters terrorists. Anyways, thanks for helping me chew through this. I'd never considered the meaning of the word closely before.