this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
21 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23287 readers
221 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Terrorism is just like, any action undertaken with the goal of inspiring terror for political purpose
You could argue that the U.S. destroying vital infrastructure in Iran is war related, but since the goal is to starve and terrorize civilians into regime change, it's also terrorism
performed by non-state actor (anarchists cough cough). its definition is molded by the powers that be bombing middle east, not from its origins. Earlier "terrorists" of the 19th century were kinda clean on the civilian fatalities, all told, much better than military of the time. now, this isn't endorsement of some shit cia-qaeda gets up to, but one has to be kinda clear on the terms, if we saying it's non-state actors involvement - we are those, and seems like an unnecessary gimme to the security state. so we could argue either every war crime is also terrorism as well, or that terrorism definition is actually meaningless (aside from the court of law). kkk activities are terrorist for example? it fits all the boxes (non-state, political goals, change through inspiring fear).
the functional difference between a mortar operator in fallujah and suicide bomber is that one of them gets away with it. thus the terror laws which conveniently allows usa to label everyone they don't like terrorist, ignore rules of war and do whatever
I think it's a much more useful definition to say it is the targeting of civilians for political purposes. Making a spooky short movie about enemy soldiers getting their heads blown off is not terrorism.
The problem is that it's bullshit and trying to make a "useful definition for terrorism" misses that that is the point of it, to be able to accuse enemies of committing a special crime that by definition the U.S./whatever "can't" do. And they can, and frequently do, alter the terms of what terrorism means for their own benefit. Like, oh you need to target civilians for it to be terrorism? Welcome to the era of Combat Aged Males. Or the other comment saying that it's only terrorism when committed by a non state actor. Suddenly now the IDF literally can't do terrorism, but Hamas, being unrecognized by other states despite being state government, suddenly can? You and I both know that's bullshit.
It doesn't matter if the target is military or civilian and it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is a state actor or some schmuck, the only thing that makes it "terrorism" is if the answer to "was it intended to cause terror to effect political change" is "yes."