| ▲ | anigbrowl a day ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well the definition is flawed, or as the British say, the law is an ass. Terrorism is widely understood to be the deployment of military force against civilian populations. Of course states do this all the time, but 'state terrorism' is basically dependent on whether politicians in country A align with country B or not; if they don't, they'll call out state abuses in country B as state terrorism, if not they'll say it's law and order. Regardless of these nuances, extending the definition to include any kind of property damage is just laughably opportunist. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | veeti a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>any kind of property "Any kind" is quite the load bearing argument there. Let me remind you Europe is under an ongoing land invasion, which is why fucking with its defensive capabilities is unlikely to solicit much sympathies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||