MacN'Cheezus to Lemmy ShitpostEnglish • 13 hours agoWell, I guess that settles itlemmy.todayimagemessage-square108fedilinkarrow-up1702arrow-down123
arrow-up1679arrow-down1imageWell, I guess that settles itlemmy.todayMacN'Cheezus to Lemmy ShitpostEnglish • 13 hours agomessage-square108fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink20•9 hours agoTerrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. It’s pretty much always meant violence for an ideology or cause. And the political motivation is very much what makes the difference. Words do have definitions.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish3•3 hours ago“Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.” From the article you cited
minus-square@LifeInMultipleChoicelink7•edit-25 hours agoWell then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn’t personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.
minus-squareTheRealKunilinkEnglish2•5 hours ago Well then define non-combatants. “a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.” Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.
minus-square@LifeInMultipleChoicelink1•2 hours agoSo it was a civilian on civilian kill. Not a militant group/gang/mercenary. If the “battle” was pertaining to healthcare denials, he was currently battling and his group took up battle after he was gone.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•4 hours agoSo is the president, who orders drone strikes on civilians.
minus-square@MutilationWavelink2•2 hours agoThe president is not a civilian. They are Commander-in-Chief of the combined armed forces.
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
It’s pretty much always meant violence for an ideology or cause. And the political motivation is very much what makes the difference.
Words do have definitions.
“Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.”
From the article you cited
Well then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn’t personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.
“a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.”
Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.
So it was a civilian on civilian kill. Not a militant group/gang/mercenary.
If the “battle” was pertaining to healthcare denials, he was currently battling and his group took up battle after he was gone.
So is the president, who orders drone strikes on civilians.
The president is not a civilian. They are Commander-in-Chief of the combined armed forces.
using definitions is cheating