Only in the eyes of the fascists.
Or anyone that knows what “terrorist” means
I think it would be highly insane to call me a fascist for recognizing myself as a terrorist
Terrorism is the use of violence and fear to bring about political or social change. Fighting back against the bad guys is not necessarily terrorism.
Do you support random bombings and shootings in order to frighten people into behaving the way you want them to? Or do you support defending yourself and fighting against those who would strip your freedoms from you and your loved ones? Those are two very different things and only one of them is terrorism.
If you’re asking me to condemn whoever killed that healthcare CEO last year, the answer is [censored].
If you’re not asking me to condemn that person, you might be a terrorist like me, but not as used to thinking about that fact as I am.
I am honestly not sure I can call the killing of that CEO an act of terrorism. That man was responsible for many deaths and the suffering of untold numbers of people. For his killing to be terrorism, in my opinion, he would have to be an innocent victim. And I think I would honestly consider him an active enemy and his killing an act of self defense or at least retribution.
Would you support the execution of insurance company office workers? That would be an indisputable an act of terrorism. But punishing, up to and perhaps including killing, the leaders of companies who are actively killing innocent people for profit? That is not necessarily terrorism. I might consider it self defense but I’d have to think about it more.
So 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because people in the twin towers were responsible for many deaths?
I don’t see the point of trying to shift the goal posts. Everyone is responsible for many deaths, the question is whether you believe in the classical style of warfare where the losing side has survivors that surrender out of fear. The “anti terrorist” crowd believe that’s just inherently wrong, killing should be strategically designed to wipe out the people it could coerce. They believe nobody can use “intimidation” or “negotiation” when reason fails because it would be coercive. Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.” I just think that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing, they’re just extremely sick and insane for thinking it’s better to wipe out all “enemies,” and pretending they can avoid “terrorism” themselves, while they actually do it constantly in the process of seemingly trying to wipe out enemies.
Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.”
Ehhh…
I feel like you are generalising a lot of variance into “anti terror” crowd. There are layers to non-violence and people have different beliefs.Also, in the Healthcare case, the target was MUCH more directly connected to the harm that is acted against, as well as in intent and severity, than the victims in 9/11. He was the target, and I don’t see anything like intent to invoke fear in the general public.
Other healthcare CEOs count as “the general public”
But you definitely have valid grounds to consider it subjective. While I mentioned it for comparison, a religious extremist targeting the janitor in the world trade center is not the same as someone justifiably targeting Brian Thompson
It was meant to invoke fear in other CEOs
Only if you’re doing it right.
Terrorism is never the right way
I’ve been identifying as a terrorist for years in preparation for this. I have less than zero emotional reaction to being called a terrorist because I already call myself one.
For example, when I promote fighting back against Nazis, the goal isn’t to silently wipe out every Nazi and have them surrender because they’ve all died without any fear. I think we should deal with it more like how we dealt with the German Nazis in World War 2, where they surrendered because they were scared, not because they all suddenly died without warning and there were none left.
I willingly make statements people are scared by, sometimes those statements even involve stuff like fighting against Nazis, and it’s not accidental, I am willingly happy to recognize a goal of scaring people instead of just making them stop moving, so how am I not a terrorist? What part of the word “terrorist” isn’t fit by this? It’s like 2+2=4
On 9/11, some Jihadists did terrorism where they killed a small portion of Americans to scare others into doing what they wanted, without killing every American that didn’t willingly agree to begin with
The US tried not to be terrorists in Iraq, we were just going to wipe out everyone that didn’t take our side, we weren’t going to leave any survivors agreeing out of fear. We were just going to have people who were on our side the whole time left alive, and everyone else dead. Then we found out we couldn’t do that, so all we could really do was terrorism where we scare people into doing what we want if they didn’t agree before, like the Jihadists that attacked us
I’ve never really tried to wipe out my enemies, I’m more like the Jihadists where even if a country attacks me and refuses to listen to reason, I’m fine with having attackers survive and stop attacking out of fear instead of being dead. This is simply understanding how the term “terrorist” is used and recognizing how it applies
I’m with the old school million year old school of thought called “terrorism” upheld by examples like FDR and Winston Churchill, where if you can’t reason with violent people, you still don’t necessarily have to kill them. Killing them can be considered a last resort. I’m not with the recently-dominant idea of “absolute brute forceism” or whatever the alternative to “terrorism” is (never really heard anyone establish that or clarify it)
It does now yeah
