• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It never had any, and I mean literally never, neither in common usage nor in military usage. It has always been code for whoever the imperial core doesn’t like and isn’t a pre-existent government (in which case they become a state sponsor of terrorism).

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        It does have a useful definition I think in “a non-state actor using violence to serve some political goal”, as that at least lets one categorize a murderer who just hated that specific guy as having something different going on with them compared to a murderer who wants their act to shock a nation into taking some action. It’s commonly misused as “someone using violence that we don’t like”, but there is still some utility in understanding a person’s motive for doing something.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          some political goal

          This is the part that faaaaaaaar too open to interpretation.

          violence

          That’s the secondmost problematic part.

      • orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        How would you classify Timothy McVey? This isn’t a loaded question, as I largely agree with you.

        How do we classify wanton killing of innocent people? Lockerbie bombings come to mind.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          How do we classify wanton killing of innocent people? Lockerbie bombings come to mind.

          I mean just call it what it is. Politically motivated bombing, mass shooting, etc. Basically what the media already does when it’s a white person doing these things.