4 ms·
I think the difference is the intent. If the intent of the act is the death (or other outcome) of a group of individuals then the act would be mass murder. If h
by tech2 6y ago
I think the difference is the intent. If the intent of the act is the death (or other outcome) of a group of individuals then the act would be mass murder. If however the intent of the act is to use these acts to cause terror (the deaths are merely a means to that end) then the act is terrorism.
Terror has been a tool of a number of political groups over the years. An easy example would be when the IRA bombing campaign moved outside of London after the ring of steel was constructed. The destruction of property, or the deaths of individuals themselves in London weren't the aims, it was the threat/fear/terror that anyone could become a victim. The terror was a lever to force government response.
- dgb23 6y agoI like this definition very much. However, would you for example include propaganda, which is specifically designed to spread fear? I always associated terrorism with physical violence.
- webmaven 6y ago> However, would you for example include propaganda, which is specifically designed to spread fear? I always associated terrorism with physical violence. Propaganda in the form of "$OUTGROUP are all murderers and rapists" is just fearmongering rather than terrorism, propaganda that threatens violence directly (eg. "Kill all $OUTGROUP") might be considered such, esp. if there is any reason to think that the propaganda is at all likely to be acted upon (so, if $OUTGROUP is "clowns" I don't think it would currently qualify, but "banksters" might).
- tech2 6y agoI think it's an interesting line, and depends on the propaganda. I imagine at some point lawyers would need to get involved to argue the minutiae. I can't say for sure and would really need decent examples.