Painting him as a terrorist is crazy

So was the Boston tea party. Yet we glorify it and teach it to our children as though it was patriotic…….perspective is a bitch!

His act was to terrorize murderous Healthcare CEOs. That makes it an act of terrorism.

But then again, the Boston Tea Party was also an act of terrorism.

It’s not the weapon that’s the problem here. It’s where it is being aimed.

They didn’t even charge Dylan Roof with terrorism. Unreal justice system we have here.

News networks would have called for Paul Reveres’ head, called him a terrorist for inciting violence. And demanded the sentence to not upset the rulers.

We live in an absolute piece of shit country anymore. These people are just state media with blonde hair and veneers.

I feel like by definition this is terrorism but that doesn’t meaningfully change the dynamics. We live in a society where poor people die or are put in inescapable debt to make rich people a bit more rich and that’s an untenable situation that will inevitably lead to resentment and violence.

I’m outraged that they’re calling it “terrorism”. It was targeted. That’s not the definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, our schoolchildren ARE terrorized, and republicans meet that with a shrug.

Problem is when you extend criminality by labelling it as terrorism you grant a political platform to the perpetrator because terrorism is a political act.

Hey, I’ve always said that terrorism works. Cause it does. It always gets results.

Maybe not the results the terrorists were looking for, but it always inspires results and actions.

It’s a sad coping mechanism to pretend that terrorists are impotent.

Nelson Mandela, Osama bin Laden, Volodomor Zelenskyy, Yahya Sinwar, have all been called terrorists.

Terrorism, on its surface, just means that the actions you take cause fear in the general public. That’s really it. The term is incredibly vague and can be applied to many, *many* people. Most often, it’s used against anyone who tries to overthrow a government or target people in power.

Not all terrorists are good (I need to be very clear that I am not defending every person I mentioned above) and not all terrorists are bad. Whether or not you agree with Mangione, being called a “terrorist” or a “supporter of terror” is meaningless.

Healthcare providers and insurance companies have been extorting us for decades. Where’s the outrage?

I mean, when you use the strict definition of terrorism (“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,” per the FBI) yes, Luigi is a terrorist, with his motives being social and political in nature. Just because the killing was arguably justified doesn’t make it not “terrorism.” We object to the label “terrorist” because we like him, and feel his actions are justified, but if he took an identical action against a healthcare CEO because his company covered abortion, we would still be calling him a terrorist. 

Rittenhouse, Jan 6, the Skittles guy. All of these aren’t “terrorists”, but if some guy kills an ultra rich white man the world loses their minds!

I don’t understand how anyone would try to spin this as NOT being terrorism.

Anybody who kills someone and has a manifesto is a terrorist. The entire point is to kill to inspire change through terror of what would happen if you didn’t. That’s terrorism.

J6 was sedition, according to the courts.

Is “definitionally” a word reasonable people use? Was he trying to say “definitively,” and his small mind couldn’t quite grasp it?

Yeah terrorism is a fucking stretch. I heard some analyst on corporate media saying the public’s reaction after the fact justifies the terrorism charge. Lol.

I wasn’t even slightly terrified. I’m not a soulless CEO though

How does a ceos death equal terroism

Was that a clever comeback, or a tired case of whataboutism?

Not surprising from Brad Polumbo