From what the manifesto found on him allegedly said, it sounds like his actions were politically motivated. And violence in pursuit of a political goal is kinda the definition of terrorism.
George Washington used violence to advance his political agenda of a sovereign USA. Was George a terrorist?
If he used violence against noncombatants.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks though.
Oh, well then Muad’dib isn’t a terrorist because he only killed a mass murderer. Military brass are considered combatants, and Brian ordered thousands to their deaths.
No?
It’s very obviously an action made with intent to cause terror. It doesn’t have to be political or violent. There is often an aspect of violence and political motivation but it isn’t a requirement
It’s pretty much always meant violence for an ideology or cause. And the political motivation is very much what makes the difference.
Words do have definitions.
Well then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn’t personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.
Its wildly overused though isnt it. Anyone can say almost anything and claim its political. And in the case of your definition, governments leverage terrorism on many of us on a day to day basis. Every protest met with force is terrorism, by that definition you proffered. So do we have a right of self defense against politically motivated violence?
