3 ms·
This fits the bill for terrorism in my mind, it is an intentional act to directly affect the people of a nation, and if it causes even one death it becomes way
by birdiesanders 3y ago
This fits the bill for terrorism in my mind, it is an intentional act to directly affect the people of a nation, and if it causes even one death it becomes way more likely the law will see it as such. Who knows when (one of these events will eventually cause a response from fed) cyberattack becomes synonymous with terror attack, though. Could be this one, could be the future (hypothetical) attack on Fox News or CNN, could be someone turning off the sewage treatment plant for DC, one of them will ruffle the right feather, eventually.
- bpye 3y agoThere have been other attacks in the past that would meet that bar, the first that comes to mind is WannaCry - seeing as it disrupted the NHS.
- bbor 3y ago> it is an intentional act to directly affect the people of a nation I would define terrorism as something closer to “violence with the intent to intimidate political opponents”. This isn’t really violent, and even if it is (it’s certainly very dangerous!), there’s no political message. Unless this is a 4D chess play that somehow is supposed to weaken America by making us more stressed or something, this just seems like Russian privateering. Your definition is a bit too broad, as I think you would admit to - I’m guessing you didn’t intend it as a flawless philosophical definition, just a quick one