- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- dodgers
- baseball
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- dodgers
- baseball
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639322
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639321
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639317
Vamanos Doyers!
People who make death threats by definition are terrorists.
Trump recently made death threats aimed at the Iranian government.
Not disproving the point.
Yep, and we know exactly what he is
I get what you’re saying but that definition of yours is lacking at best
“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.”
So… no, I think I got it right. I mean, its root is from the Latin word- “terror”. A threat of death is sure to cause such a feeling in most people. So- in this form, the threat illustrates the act of one person terrorizing another. Therefore- one who terrorizes is a terrorist by definition.
This is not a stretch to arrive at this conclusion. That it sounds foreign might be a result of the normalization of violence.
Your previous comment left out the “to achieve political or ideological aims” part, which is the essential difference between terrorism and regular violence.
“Ideological” pretty much covers everything else. A threat to kill is an act of terrorism.
I think what’s happening here, is that murder has become so normalized that we have reached a point where the word “terrorism” has to have some special definition that excludes it from the regular run-of-the-mill terror one would experience when they’re life is threatened for whatever reason.
I mean, would you feel terror if someone threatened your life in a way that you truly believed you were in danger?
Oh, and she sung a song in Spanish, and was threatened with death for not singing in American English. That screams political to me…
People typically have definitions like this in mind:
Acts (1) dangerous to life (2) designed to coerce a population or a government. Otherwise, any threat inimical to life would qualify.
Death is dangerous to life and groups of chuds threatening people who don’t sing their national anthem in their preferred language are attempting to coerce a population.
I think people in America typically have a definition like this:
They also think that politics is operated purely on lies and name calling for power grabs and so therefore since they gave the terrorist label to brown people, they can’t ever be one and all their actions are excusable since it’s impossible for them to be a terrorist.
An act directed to a single person isn’t an act intimidating or coercing the civil population. In contrast, such an act directed at/broadcast to the general civil population does qualify as intimidation or coercion of the civil population.
They’re directed at all brown people
Not necessarily. Not unless they’re trying to force an ideology.
If I threaten to kill you because I plainly don’t like you, that’s not really making me a terrorist.
If you threaten to kill someone, you are using terror to manipulate them into being fearful.
A death threat because you don’t like someone is still an intention to instill fear in someone. So yes. You’d be a terrorist.
By definition: terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to instill fear, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. Killing someone out of hate is an ideological goal.
Sorry, that just doesn’t follow the actual definition of terrorism. Remove the comma, and “often” and we’re real closer.
Literally the first result on Google From wiki:
Not every murderer is a terrorist.
If their victim died in terror, yes. They are.
In most cases, no. All hate is not ideological hate, and most killings are not ideological either. Most of the violence we see in the world is due to people’s personal relationships with each other, or are the result of some spontaneous fight.
The problem with what you’re doing here is you’re diluting the meaning of the word “terrorism”. You wrote out the definition, but you don’t seem to understand it. The key element is that terrorism is not just instilling fear, but using that fear to obtain political or ideological goals.
If instilling fear is sufficient to make someone a terrorist, any violent criminal or anyone threatening others becomes a terrorist, and the word loses its meaning.