3 ms·
So it's the use of destructive measures, which one might describe as "violence", targeted at assets utilized principally by civilians, for the purposes of affec
by XorNot 3y ago
So it's the use of destructive measures, which one might describe as "violence", targeted at assets utilized principally by civilians, for the purposes of affecting political change in policy by a government.
Were this to rise in severity from "nuisance", what would you describe that feeling as? What reaction do you think commonly provokes people exposed to negative stimuli into action they don't otherwise want to take?
- friend_and_foe 3y agoNo. Man, quit trying to massage the definition to make yourself right.
- XorNot 3y agoThat's dodging the question not a rebuttal.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI don't need to rebut you, you're stretching the definition of "terrorism" to feel right. There's no question to dodge, "so what happens if this activity escalates into terrorism, would that make this terrorism?" The discussion was settled 2 comments ago. "Terrorism" is clearly defined. Breaking things to inconvenience your enemies in warfare is not terrorism.