It’s not terrorism when it’s a major state actor and they’re not hiding their involvement. That’s just war.
Uhm, no, based on your definition not even the official 9/11 story’s Al-Quaida would be considered terrorists because they supposedly admitted to what they were doing:
FBI’s terrorism definitions:
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.
Cambridge:
violent action for political purposes
Al Queda was a non-state actor with state support. You bolded “nations”, but that whole line says “designated foreign terrorist … nations”. The Ukrainians are not trying to instil fear, they’re cutting a major logistical line with military uses.
Devils in the details, as usual.
I also bolded nations (state-sponsored), political organizations, state institutions such as armies and intelligence services.
Exactly for that reason. Ukraine is openly and clandestinely attacking* Russia, most likely with help from Western governments. The goal is to instill fear in the Russian population in order to reduce the russian population’s willingness to support or accept the ongoing SMO/war against Ukraine/NATO expansion.
- I’m not judging, they’re at war.
Office buildings are not military targets, nor was the plane used to strike the Pentagon (getting ahead of that potential rebuttal). The Kerch bridge is as it’s used to transport military goods to the front line.
The purpose of felling the two towers was to cause terror and change amaricans political views.
The purpose of felling the Kerch bridge is to stop russian bringing military resources into the Ukraine.
What maybe a difficult point is something like the bombing of ww2 cities like Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima. Many there were making munitions for Japan so was it.civilian or moltrry
None of your definitions match Ukraine, which attacks military targets during an active war started by a nation that invaded them.
Now, Russia actively bombing civilian targets to generate a climate of fear in a population to bring a particular political objective, seems to awfully match that definition.
What’s so interesting to me is that from much of what I’ve read - bombing civilian populations as a way to end a war has basically never worked. It was pushed heavily in WWII due to I think LeMay theories, but basically strengthened morale to stand up to the enemy instead.
Of course, not saying the Russians, or really anyone who gets into a war is necessarily behaving rationally, but this is sadly very destructive with very little history saying it’ll help anyone achieve any goal.
