n 1: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence)
against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is
done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I’m cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I’m cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.
It’s not terrorism if it’s not even trying to kill people. That’s just destruction of property or arson in this case.
Property damage is not violence against civilians.
Anything that’s not the state is civilian. That includes civilian property. And I, too, cheer on violence against the oppressive class.
Property is not people though.
Otherwise shorting companies would also be terrorism.
What you’re missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an “attack”
just put maga on the sign