3 ms·

No, not really. Just those efforts that aim to terrorize.

• ceejayoz 4y ago
  No; attacks on US service members and bases in war zones are often called terrorism. The term has absolutely become overly broad.
  • NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    [citation needed]
    • ceejayoz 4y ago
      Sure; as an example, the attack on the USS Cole. Clear military target, widely described as a terrorist attack, including by the FBI (https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing).
      • NotYourLawyer 4y ago
        >war zones Were we at war with Yemen when this happened?
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • ceejayoz 4y ago
          We weren’t at war with the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Still wasn’t a terrorist attack. We can, and should, make a significant distinction between attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets.
          • NotYourLawyer 4y ago
            I think the main distinction is who’s doing the attacking. If it’s a state-level attack, then it’s an act of war. If it’s just a random group of dudes, it’s terrorism. It doesn’t become not terrorism just because the target is military in nature.
            • ceejayoz 4y ago
              Which would you consider the Taliban? Is the Islamic State a state-level organization? How big and well organized does the state need to be?
            • anigbrowl 4y ago
              So all rebels are terrorists, and therefore invalid. Very convenient for dictators.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
• andybak 4y ago
  Ideally yes, but we all know the word has expanded into a political battering ram, far beyond it's original meaning.