• TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The perpetrator of an act of terrorism isn’t part of the definition. They need not be affiliated with a group or military.

    I find it curious how many people on Lemmy were gleefully posting about CEOs and billionaires being scared because of this attack, and then to see push-back about the label of terrorism (where fear is part of the outcome, hence the name).

    The saying is “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” right?

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I get that we aren’t likely to agree. But “my version” of what terrorism is… You know because I’m an entitled person who gets to make shit up… but you’ll get what I mean… is to instill fear in the masses by performing an act. When you fly into a building, people say “they could have flown into my building”. When you launch a missile at a housing complex, people think that could have been my housing complex (gave up on quotes). When you blow up a communication device or a car… People think that could have been my car, phone, pager.

      When you kill a CEO, no one is worried for their life when they say “that could have been my CEO”. They are more like shit… I wonder if Tim would get that job? Fuck I hope it’s not Pam. So unless the masses are being terrorized by an army of Pam’s… I just think it’s not terrorism

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I actually don’t disagree. That’s certainly the connotation that comes with “terrorism.”

        It’s also not how the legal definition works, unfortunately, which is just vague enough to let the FBI decide what is and isn’t terrorism based on how they feel about something. As I understand it, anyway. And since what he did falls under the legal definition, they can charge him with it.