3 ms·

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

by 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.

by mc32 4y ago

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.