Terrorist is often a boogeyman label for freedom fighter.
Yep.
This and virtually all countries were founded by people who would fit the definition of terrorist.
How history remembers you is solely on the basis of how successful your “terrorism” was.
George Washington is a very well regarded terrorist in modernity.
Doesn’t it just mean political violence?
It means Italians aren’t white.
I never noticed that Spongebob’s shoulders change position on his body when he raises his arms.
So does that mean his shoulders are actually inside his torso, and he just has really long upper arms?
I was unable to find any images from the show where he didn’t have sleeves, so they must be part of his body. Maybe they just slide around on the sides of him.
I’m pretty sure it’s a Rayman situation, the sleeves are just cover
This is most definitely cursed knowledge
He doesn’t have bones (except for in gags), so he doesn’t actually have shoulders anyway. He’s just squishy
I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.
The point is that terrorism is only applied when it’s convenient for the ruling class. Hate crime murders are similarly politically motivated but don’t get the terrorism label.
Isn’t this a straight “eye-for-an-eye” revenge killing?
I’d argue the US for-profit health insurance system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population, for profit.
What greater way to terrorize a population than to deny them and their families healthcare, under the threat of bankruptcy? How about the threat of bankruptcy either way, whether they’re insured or not?
The industry kills 30x 9/11 every year, bankrupts 500k, while stealing 500-700 billion from the population (compared to the public systems of the developed world). At the very least, it’s financial terrorism and extortion.
Morally, yes. Legally, no.
Saying “legally” isn’t much of an argument, IMO, not to imply you meant it as one. What’s legal or illegal is arbitrarily decided on by those in power, and arbitrarily enforced. The vast majority of these laws were not voted on by us and they’re rarely if ever reviewed.
It’s a joke of a charge. Fascist Christian terrorists can shoot up LGBTQ+ people and never be called terrorists by media or charged with it. It’s bullshit and only because he took on our oligarch elite
