3 ms·

> Terrorism is a form of warfare in which a social movement that opposes the state directs violence toward civilians rather than the military or the police. ht

> Terrorism is a form of warfare in which a social movement that opposes the state directs violence toward civilians rather than the military or the police. https://www.britannica.com/topic/collective-violence/Coups-rebellions-and-revolutions https://www.britannica.com/topic/collective-violence/Coups-r... Even your own definition doesn't apply - the insurrectionists weren't a subnational group (they don't have a cohesive identity other than sharing a common cause) or clandestine agents.

wavefunction 6y ago
They definitely have a cohesive identity and are even organized in defined specialized identities like militias and Proud Boys. These are domestic terrorists and they attempted to overturn the fair and free elections in this country based on outright lies with NO evidence to support them and also kidnap and murder civilians, law enforcement and anyone else who stood in their way. I and others have been following their discussions online and its clear that while not every single individual at the domestic insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th seeks to murder and cause mayhem, many in the hundreds and thousands do. Many beyond that seek to downplay the danger and provide apologia for the criminal actions of terrorists they at least partially sympathize with.
landryraccoon 6y ago
Are you arguing that it is impossible for an individual acting alone to be a terrorist? I think even a small group of say 2-3 people under your definition could not be considered terrorists.
three_seagrass 6y ago
The people invading the capitol last week definitely had a cohesive identity. You can call them MAGAs or Red Caps or even Trump supporters, but their cohesiveness was strong enough to drive popularity for a social media platform (Parler).
anigbrowl 6y ago
A common cause seems like a sufficiently cohesive identity; I don't see why voluntary political affiliations should be excluded. They were not very clandestine, I agree. Their antipathy to wearing masks has been rather a boon to law enforcement, although even the ones who were masked were fairly easily identified later.

wavefunction 6y ago

They definitely have a cohesive identity and are even organized in defined specialized identities like militias and Proud Boys. These are domestic terrorists and they attempted to overturn the fair and free elections in this country based on outright lies with NO evidence to support them and also kidnap and murder civilians, law enforcement and anyone else who stood in their way. I and others have been following their discussions online and its clear that while not every single individual at the domestic insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th seeks to murder and cause mayhem, many in the hundreds and thousands do. Many beyond that seek to downplay the danger and provide apologia for the criminal actions of terrorists they at least partially sympathize with.

landryraccoon 6y ago

Are you arguing that it is impossible for an individual acting alone to be a terrorist? I think even a small group of say 2-3 people under your definition could not be considered terrorists.

three_seagrass 6y ago

The people invading the capitol last week definitely had a cohesive identity. You can call them MAGAs or Red Caps or even Trump supporters, but their cohesiveness was strong enough to drive popularity for a social media platform (Parler).

anigbrowl 6y ago

A common cause seems like a sufficiently cohesive identity; I don't see why voluntary political affiliations should be excluded. They were not very clandestine, I agree. Their antipathy to wearing masks has been rather a boon to law enforcement, although even the ones who were masked were fairly easily identified later.