this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
21 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23287 readers
120 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
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."