people are responsible for their own emotions. the only reasonable definition of terrorism is activity that the existing political status quo does not approve. that’s it. it doesn’t need to attack someone. it doesn’t need to be violent. the Boston tea party was terrorism as surely as the assassination of the arch duke.
i think you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that you are not the arbiter of the meaning of terrorism, and its useful meaning has nothing to do with emotions.
one man’s insurgent
No. Terrorism is when you destabilise the feeling of safety somewhere by attacking civilians
people are responsible for their own emotions. the only reasonable definition of terrorism is activity that the existing political status quo does not approve. that’s it. it doesn’t need to attack someone. it doesn’t need to be violent. the Boston tea party was terrorism as surely as the assassination of the arch duke.
But it’s not the definition. It’s when you destabilise using fear of death and attack violently civilians to create that fear
Only in usa you make terrorism mean “enemy”
i think you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that you are not the arbiter of the meaning of terrorism, and its useful meaning has nothing to do with emotions.
So stop saying it’s something else? I’m not the arbiter but you are? It does mean killing civilians to create fear