A lot of heated rhetoric surrounding the Austin bomber--who thankfully won't be hurting anyone anymore--and whether or not he was a terrorist. I teach classes on terrorism, and here's a thread why it's unclear (based on what we know now) and why the classification matters. 1/x
-
-
Bingo. We attach a high priority to fighting terrorism for obvious, very sensible reasons. People who have different priorities thus want to use the terrorism frame to redirect public attention to *their* priorities. It's dishonest and needs to be called out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're trying to alter common meanings of a word with academic and legal definitions. The bomber spread terror. Hence, he is a terrorist. A two-word phrase like "political terrorist" does a better job getting across your meaning.
-
No, there is nothing "academic" or "legal" about the definition of terrorism
@NGrossman81 and I are referencing. That's its plain-English definition, no modifier required. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=terrorism … -
Terrorist: "2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorist …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.