you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

That is not the definition of terrorism... if you believe it is, please show me this definition.

Also, please quote what in specific I said that makes you think I am angry about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420

    Terrrorism is the use of violence to cause political change. Not whatever nonsense you were taught in whatever terrible education system produced you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    You're not going with your own definition. Did you even read it or did you just think I wouldn't? It starts with this:

    The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear.

    The purpose of most assassinations is not about fear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Read more than the first line, try again, and maybe enroll in a literacy program instead of continuing to exist online.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago

    Insulting me won't make the purpose of assassinations to be about fear.

    But sure, let's go with the second sentence. There were only two sentences in the definition:

    Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

    That is also not what assassinations are usually about. They are usually not about coercion or intimidation. They are about retribution or seizing power.

    Feel free to insult me on that front too.

  • source
  • parent