It never had any, and I mean literally never, neither in common usage nor in military usage. It has always been code for whoever the imperial core doesn’t like and isn’t a pre-existent government (in which case they become a state sponsor of terrorism).
How do we classify wanton killing of innocent people? Lockerbie bombings come to mind.
I mean just call it what it is. Politically motivated bombing, mass shooting, etc. Basically what the media already does when it’s a white person doing these things.
I never said I agreed with his ideology. However blowing up federal buildings in an oppressive society is always morally justified. Means isn’t motive. The motive is awful, the means is just fine.
Also no one cares about liberal threats, you guys give power to fascists ever chance you get because you can’t stand to kill the undesirables you hate by yourself.
…no, it just wasn’t. That’s entirely a lie. Having a va office does not make a building a hospital. And yes, oppressors usually use the cries of children to justify their fascism after the fact.
Again I don’t support his ideology, you can see that from my comment history, but you people are the reason trump is installing fascism in the us nearly entirely unopposed.
It does have a useful definition I think in “a non-state actor using violence to serve some political goal”, as that at least lets one categorize a murderer who just hated that specific guy as having something different going on with them compared to a murderer who wants their act to shock a nation into taking some action. It’s commonly misused as “someone using violence that we don’t like”, but there is still some utility in understanding a person’s motive for doing something.
It never had any, and I mean literally never, neither in common usage nor in military usage. It has always been code for whoever the imperial core doesn’t like and isn’t a pre-existent government (in which case they become a state sponsor of terrorism).
How would you classify Timothy McVey? This isn’t a loaded question, as I largely agree with you.
How do we classify wanton killing of innocent people? Lockerbie bombings come to mind.
Mass murderer?
I mean just call it what it is. Politically motivated bombing, mass shooting, etc. Basically what the media already does when it’s a white person doing these things.
Removed by mod
Blowing up a daycare is pretty much never the answer.
Removed by mod
That’s a lot of words for missing he fucking killed children. But yunxiaoli endorses! Gotcha.
Wow
Removed by mod
I never said I agreed with his ideology. However blowing up federal buildings in an oppressive society is always morally justified. Means isn’t motive. The motive is awful, the means is just fine.
Also no one cares about liberal threats, you guys give power to fascists ever chance you get because you can’t stand to kill the undesirables you hate by yourself.
You realize the federal building he blew up was a hospital, right? You can visit it and listen to the recordings of the children who died.
…no, it just wasn’t. That’s entirely a lie. Having a va office does not make a building a hospital. And yes, oppressors usually use the cries of children to justify their fascism after the fact.
Again I don’t support his ideology, you can see that from my comment history, but you people are the reason trump is installing fascism in the us nearly entirely unopposed.
My dude I’ve been there. I’m from there. That was a lot of hospital beds for a non-hospital.
That’s nice, except that’s in absolutely no documentation from the era, not one news story, not one documentary mentions it.
It does have a useful definition I think in “a non-state actor using violence to serve some political goal”, as that at least lets one categorize a murderer who just hated that specific guy as having something different going on with them compared to a murderer who wants their act to shock a nation into taking some action. It’s commonly misused as “someone using violence that we don’t like”, but there is still some utility in understanding a person’s motive for doing something.
This is the part that faaaaaaaar too open to interpretation.
That’s the secondmost problematic part.