• Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I get what you’re saying but that definition of yours is lacking at best

    • Wren@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Your previous comment left out the “to achieve political or ideological aims” part, which is the essential difference between terrorism and regular violence.

        • Wren@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          “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…