• james1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it’s bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that’s definitely not a uniform definition.

      the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

      - Britannica

      The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

      - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

      the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.

      - Wiki

      (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

      - Collins English Dictionary

      the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes… government or resistance to government by means of terror.

      - Webster’s

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If China sanctioned the US as a terrorist state and discovered a Chinese company was illegally selling oil to the US, would you be upset with the Chinese government bringing that company to court? And would you say it’s wrong that as part of the court proceedings, the company in violation agrees to ship the oil to a Chinese port, for the Chinese government to seize?

        If that sounds acceptable to you, you should really consider why you find it unacceptable and propaganda when the roles are switched.