Horrible mass killing in New Orleans' French Quarter
Whoever the perpetrator turns out to be and what their motivation is, let's not rest the decision on calling it #terrorism or not based on their gender and religion
For an act to constitute terrorism, it must pass two tests:
1: It must have a political purpose
2: it must target innocent civilians who play no role in the decision making the act is intended to influence
New Orleans appears to but cannot be confirmed to pass both tests. The random public was targetted, and a Daesh flag implies a political motive. However, that flag could also be cover for something else that would make it simply a mass crime not a terrorist strike. The perpetrator was drinking himself out of reality and was a known domestic abuser. It's possible he just wanted to see the world burn and packed a Daesh flag as a distraction from that.
Las Vegas cannot be called a terrorist attack unless random hotel patrons were the intended target rather than excessive collateral damage. Any Trump hotel anywhere does not qualify as innocent civilian as Trump is an enemy commander and targetting his assets is therefore an attempt to inflict pain directly on an opposing decision maker. Can be compared to Ukraine using drones to destroy business assets in Moscow owned by Putin. Few would deny those are legitimate targets of war.
This is military action but it is not terrorism. This is true even if it is military action by a shared enemy such as rival theocrats (e.g. Daesh) or other rival fash who want Trump's throne for themselves.
Some also would argue that staying at a Trump hotel anytime after 2015 is consent to the risks of war (like sailing into the war zone on the Lusitania) or even trafficking with the enemy.
Then there is the execution of UHC's CEO allegedly by Luigi. That CEO was guilty of killing thousands so he was not only not innocent but a high value target. Taking him out was of course intended to achieve a political result, and it did so by forcing Anthem/Blue Cross to cancel planned time limits on surgical anesthesia. One shot in NY may have saved thousands of lives as a result. A targetted killing yes, but best compared to a drone strike on Putin himself by Ukraine. Military hell yes, terrorist hell no. Zero uninvolved people harmed, that's Luigi's stated reason for not using a bomb in fact: fear of harming non-target individuals. No terrorist would give a shit about that.
As for the lawful vs unlawful combatant crap, that has no bearing on the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined by who its done to, not by who does it.
LukefromDC •
Inhaltswarnung: uspol, killing, terrorism
1: It must have a political purpose
2: it must target innocent civilians who play no role in the decision making the act is intended to influence
New Orleans appears to but cannot be confirmed to pass both tests. The random public was targetted, and a Daesh flag implies a political motive. However, that flag could also be cover for something else that would make it simply a mass crime not a terrorist strike. The perpetrator was drinking himself out of reality and was a known domestic abuser. It's possible he just wanted to see the world burn and packed a Daesh flag as a distraction from that.
Las Vegas cannot be called a terrorist attack unless random hotel patrons were the intended target rather than excessive collateral damage. Any Trump hotel anywhere does not qualify as innocent civilian as Trump is an enemy commander and targetting his assets is therefore an attempt to inflict pain directly on an opposing decision maker. Can be compared to Ukraine using drones to destroy business assets in Moscow owned by Putin. Few would deny those are legitimate targets of war.
This is military action but it is not terrorism. This is true even if it is military action by a shared enemy such as rival theocrats (e.g. Daesh) or other rival fash who want Trump's throne for themselves.
Some also would argue that staying at a Trump hotel anytime after 2015 is consent to the risks of war (like sailing into the war zone on the Lusitania) or even trafficking with the enemy.
Then there is the execution of UHC's CEO allegedly by Luigi. That CEO was guilty of killing thousands so he was not only not innocent but a high value target. Taking him out was of course intended to achieve a political result, and it did so by forcing Anthem/Blue Cross to cancel planned time limits on surgical anesthesia. One shot in NY may have saved thousands of lives as a result. A targetted killing yes, but best compared to a drone strike on Putin himself by Ukraine. Military hell yes, terrorist hell no. Zero uninvolved people harmed, that's Luigi's stated reason for not using a bomb in fact: fear of harming non-target individuals. No terrorist would give a shit about that.
As for the lawful vs unlawful combatant crap, that has no bearing on the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined by who its done to, not by who does it.