• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Please show me that definition. Assassinations are generally not done to cause terror. They are done to achieve more specific political goals (i.e. get the guy in power out of power).

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours 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.