4 ms·
How is this not virtual terrorism? It targets a section of users indiscriminately (it ain't hitting Putin's Government exclusively), and it causes damage to mak
by anonymouswacker 5y ago
How is this not virtual terrorism? It targets a section of users indiscriminately (it ain't hitting Putin's Government exclusively), and it causes damage to make a political point.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- google234123 5y agoLet’s not dilute terrorism more. Doing so is diminishes what real victims have experienced.
- bejelentkezni 5y agoIt is politically-motivated destruction of property. I don't know how much more textbook you want it to be.
- 4khilles 5y agoThat's not at all close to textbook terrorism. There's no violence or intimidation. It's not even clear whether this is unlawful.
- Thiez 5y agoIntentional destruction of property is considered unlawful in most societies. I'm not sure why you would even question that?
- jaxn 5y agoCan it be terrorism when counter-attacking the aggressor?
- postsantum 5y agoIt's not the agressor, it's general population that happened to live in the same place
- woodruffw 5y agoYou'll note that the operative word "terror" isn't present in "politically-motivated destruction of property." Terrorism means something specific: it means inflicting terror as an end in itself.
- tomcatfish 5y agoTerrorism doesn't have "terror as an end in itself" either. Almost no one ever has terror as "an end in itself". Not saying parent's defn is correct, but I don't like this one either.