3 ms·

Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so.

• anigbrowl 4y ago
  Yes, but so are an awful lot of other things. Animal rights and environmental activists have been frequently tagged with that term, even when engaged in nonviolent protest. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=dlr https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
  • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Or 'fist bumps': https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist_fist_jab https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist_fist_jab
    • r3trohack3r 4y ago
      There is a difference between a news anchor saying “terrorist” and the president of the United States saying “terrorist.” When a news anchor says it, it’s a talking point. When Obama said it, a U.S. citizen was assassinated without trial. Whenever you see the executive branch use the phrase “terrorist” to describe an American citizen you should worry. When news anchors used it to describe protests it was a talking point. When Trump used it to describe protestors, that was cause for concern. When news outlets used the word to describe the Jan 6th riots, it was a talking point. When Biden used it for the Jan 6 riots, that was cause for concern. The executive branch assassinates terrorists. News anchors do not.
• mr_toad 4y ago
  > Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so. For a political cause, or at least a cause. Otherwise it’s just mass murder.