Like, libs who think russian troops did all the things they’ve been accused of in western media. It kinda makes sense for them to cheer on Ukraine’s latest terror attack if they truly believe that russians are doing all the warcrimes at the same time. I know in my life it feels like an insurmountable challenge to get someone to read an article from anywhere else in the world.
So, what’s your tolerance for someone who truly thinks they’re basing their worldview on reality but it actually just regurgitating propaganda?
The problem is that it’s bullshit and trying to make a “useful definition for terrorism” misses that that is the point of it, to be able to accuse enemies of committing a special crime that by definition the U.S./whatever “can’t” do. And they can, and frequently do, alter the terms of what terrorism means for their own benefit. Like, oh you need to target civilians for it to be terrorism? Welcome to the era of Combat Aged Males. Or the other comment saying that it’s only terrorism when committed by a non state actor. Suddenly now the IDF literally can’t do terrorism, but Hamas, being unrecognized by other states despite being state government, suddenly can? You and I both know that’s bullshit.
It doesn’t matter if the target is military or civilian and it doesn’t matter if the perpetrator is a state actor or some schmuck, the only thing that makes it “terrorism” is if the answer to “was it intended to cause terror to effect political change” is “yes.”