Comment by diggan a day ago
Could you provide what definition you use for "terrorism"? Otherwise your comment might as well just say "No" and it contributes the same amount to the discussion.
Besides, I'd say it's both. There is no denying it was a murder, nor that it was targeted and based on what I understand "terrorism" to be, it seems like that too.
> One of the key components of terrorism is random or at least very loose targeting and some degree of disregard for collateral damage.
I don't see how loose targetting is required. Or was the Oklahoma City Bombing not terrorism because it targetted a specific building?
The FBI definition of domestic terrorism is only one of many, but they say:
> Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
In my mind, the key is intent to further ideological goals. Killing a rival gang member to increase your standings in the gang leader boards isn't terrorism because there's no ideology. Killing a gang member to try to wipe out gangs could be, because it's an ideological battle. It wouldn't matter if you specifically targetted the leader of a gang, or the first gang member you saw, or someone you thought was a gang member without any investigation; it's the intent to further your ideology with violent crime.
> One of the key components of terrorism is random or at least very loose targeting and some degree of disregard for collateral damage.
Thanks, learned something new about the US today :) In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the goals/objectives behind the actions seem to take a more important role than how you seem to consider it in the US.
>It is very modern meaning of the word. It is almost re-labeled, like "piracy" for copyright infringement.
And people who called themselves anarchists used to be ideologically communist-adjacent. That was well over a century ago.
Words change over time. The definition has been what is has since at least the 1970s, probably longer depending on where you measure. It is not "very modern".
There is a legal distinction and definition, Legal Eagle on YouTube had an episode on exactly this a few weeks ago, about that the DA might have picked a more difficult crime to prove than murder. IANAL but IIRC the terrorism charge has to prove there is an intent to intimidate larger swaths of government or bodies of people. Just "other CEOs of Health Companies are now scared" is not enough.
Yeah, I guess it kind of make sense the US has a somewhat different definition of terrorism that the rest of the world I suppose. I think in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the amount of victims isn't the consideration if it's "terrorism" or not, but rather if there is a objective to destabilize the state, gravely disturb public peace or provoke a state of error in a specific segment of the population. Basically, the purpose/objective takes a vital importance in seeing if something is terrorism or not.
But again, makes sense that the US would have different definition.
> if you (try to) use violence against civilians for political/ideological/religious motives
A person driving over a person with a van with explicit goal of "Jihad against Christians" would be terrorism, because of the objective, no matter how many people get hurt.
While it seems clear to me that this can be considered "terrorism", it would also seem like it isn't breaking against "anti-terrorism laws" or whatever the charge is in the US.
One of the key components of terrorism is random or at least very loose targeting and some degree of disregard for collateral damage.
The United Healthcare murder was basically a reverse Eric garner. Instead of the government killing someone over something petty to keep the peasants in line a crazy peasant killed a member of the ruling class to send the same message in the other direction.
Politically both of these are more like a good ol' fashioned lynching than terrorism though obviously the line between the two becomes a bit blurry. Most targeted political violence is not terrorism (though of course the statues are so broad that if you crop dust an elevator in a government building you're probably open to prosecution).