3 ms·

The attack on infrastructure itself could constitute terrorism, if the infrastructure attack was intended to scare or intimidate the public to achieve some poli

The attack on infrastructure itself could constitute terrorism, if the infrastructure attack was intended to scare or intimidate the public to achieve some political objective. Wiktionary's definition of terrorism includes attacks against property: "The use of unlawful violence against people or property to achieve political objectives." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorism https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorism

mc32 4y ago
I don't completely agree with that definition. A bank robber may briefly instill terror to the people in the bank, but it's not an act of terror. However, if it's committed by a group (like the Hearst heir) then because it's in support of further activities, I would classify it as terrorism. Often, governments, (not just the US but in general) use the term in order to enlist more sympathy from disinterested civilians in order to add support for government response and also to curb sympathy for the group or individuals. So protesters in Belarus or China, etc, they get labeled terrorists.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > A bank robber may briefly instill terror to the people in the bank, but it's not an act of terror. Political motive is a key part of that definition. Simple greed isn't a political motive, but if somebody started robbing banks because they had an axe to grind with the federal reserve, I think that would probably qualify as terrorism.
  - mc32 4y ago
    I don't think political motive is sufficient. Turning off the lights does not by itself instill fear and terror --there are things individuals or groups could tack on that would, of course. For example OWS was political and caused some property damage [as well as euro climate activists throwing substances at artworks], but I would be loath to classify either terrorism. I guess the action in ATL regarding a police raining facility is domestic terrorism.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Unlawful violence is the other part of that definition. Two components: unlawful violence and a political motive. Not either/or, terrorism requires both. > OWS was political and caused some property damage Marginal example. I think most of the property damage was incidental to what they were doing; camping in city parks. Insofar as the property damage was deliberate vandalism, it seems like marginal terrorism. To pick an similar example that seems a lot more clear; if the KKK throws a brick through the window of a business owned by a black person, that's obviously terrorism right? All in all I think wiktionary's definition is pretty good.
      - mc32 4y ago
        I think we mostly agree, but have some small differences in some aspects. To elaborate, I don't like the weaseliness of "unlawful" as well as "violence". (to put it bluntly, in some contexts violence is anything form touching a shoulder to punching a nose and beyond --and who decides lawfulness and unlawfulness?) I'm _not_ saying they are undefinable but rather in some contexts their definitions are given great latitude.
mr_toad 4y ago
That covers any riot, and a large proportion of protests. If someone throws paint at an artwork, is that terrorism too? Terrorism is so overused it has lost pretty much any meaning. Being called a terrorist just means you’ve annoyed someone in authority.
- themitigating 4y ago
  How does throwing paint at a painting terrorize the population? I'm sure some people cared but I don't think it strikes fear when people hear about it.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  It probably should cover riots. Unless of course the riot is in support of [good thing]. Implicit to any definition of terrorism is the qualification that it doesn't count if it's done to support [thing you support]. Naturally. As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

mc32 4y ago

I don't completely agree with that definition. A bank robber may briefly instill terror to the people in the bank, but it's not an act of terror. However, if it's committed by a group (like the Hearst heir) then because it's in support of further activities, I would classify it as terrorism. Often, governments, (not just the US but in general) use the term in order to enlist more sympathy from disinterested civilians in order to add support for government response and also to curb sympathy for the group or individuals. So protesters in Belarus or China, etc, they get labeled terrorists.

LarryMullins 4y ago
> A bank robber may briefly instill terror to the people in the bank, but it's not an act of terror. Political motive is a key part of that definition. Simple greed isn't a political motive, but if somebody started robbing banks because they had an axe to grind with the federal reserve, I think that would probably qualify as terrorism.
- mc32 4y ago
  I don't think political motive is sufficient. Turning off the lights does not by itself instill fear and terror --there are things individuals or groups could tack on that would, of course. For example OWS was political and caused some property damage [as well as euro climate activists throwing substances at artworks], but I would be loath to classify either terrorism. I guess the action in ATL regarding a police raining facility is domestic terrorism.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Unlawful violence is the other part of that definition. Two components: unlawful violence and a political motive. Not either/or, terrorism requires both. > OWS was political and caused some property damage Marginal example. I think most of the property damage was incidental to what they were doing; camping in city parks. Insofar as the property damage was deliberate vandalism, it seems like marginal terrorism. To pick an similar example that seems a lot more clear; if the KKK throws a brick through the window of a business owned by a black person, that's obviously terrorism right? All in all I think wiktionary's definition is pretty good.
    - mc32 4y ago
      I think we mostly agree, but have some small differences in some aspects. To elaborate, I don't like the weaseliness of "unlawful" as well as "violence". (to put it bluntly, in some contexts violence is anything form touching a shoulder to punching a nose and beyond --and who decides lawfulness and unlawfulness?) I'm _not_ saying they are undefinable but rather in some contexts their definitions are given great latitude.

mr_toad 4y ago

That covers any riot, and a large proportion of protests. If someone throws paint at an artwork, is that terrorism too? Terrorism is so overused it has lost pretty much any meaning. Being called a terrorist just means you’ve annoyed someone in authority.

themitigating 4y ago
How does throwing paint at a painting terrorize the population? I'm sure some people cared but I don't think it strikes fear when people hear about it.
LarryMullins 4y ago
It probably should cover riots. Unless of course the riot is in support of [good thing]. Implicit to any definition of terrorism is the qualification that it doesn't count if it's done to support [thing you support]. Naturally. As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.