Terrorism

[email protected]

The reason for "it had to be done" is political.

Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

He explicitly states that he does not have the "space" nor the qualification to lay out what you want him to lay out, but he pretty much says what you said he should've said for it to be political: "Privatized health insurance is corrupt and greedy, we've known it for a long time and nothing has been done to prevent or stop it, thus I took a more violent approach to do something about the corruption and greed."

[email protected]

There are a lot of murders and I'm sure every single non-negligience murderer thinks theirs had to be done, mate.

[email protected]

My understanding is that Luigi did not publish the manifesto, and that it was discovered by others later. If that's true, then the manifesto itself is not particularly relevant to anything criminal. The message on the bullets could be considered relevant, but I don't see how that alone would be proof of intent to terrorize.

[email protected]

You can certainly interpret the killing that way, but there are many other reasonable interpretations, and to get a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have a quote of him saying before the murder or publishing at any time something indicating that he was killing this guy to send a message to all the evil m************ who act just like him? If we do, your conclusion is warranted. If we don't, your conclusion is speculation.

Let me give you a parallel. Imagine someone cuts me off in traffic and I pull out a gun and I shoot them. Am I terrorizing other bad drivers? Probably not. Probably I'm a psychopath dealing with road rage in a terrible fashion. In other words, the fact that other people can draw conclusions about similar behavior does not in itself make my actions threatening to them in any way.

[email protected]

But the reason why they think it had to be done still matters. "This CEO wronged me personally" and "the systemic oppression made me do it" contextualize the act in a very different way. The reason he did this is why it's political. If he had done it because he had a personal vendetta against the CEO or he had some religious beliefs that made him do it or if he was just insane, then it wouldn't be a political reason. But he did it because (paraphrasing his statement) he saw an unopposed corrupt system that needed to be opposed. That is a political reason.

[email protected]

What does King Koopa have to do with any of this?

[email protected]

is accused of saying "Delay, deny, depose, you people are next

Which is.... illegal now?

Free speech for me but not for thee, huh?

[email protected]

just watch this.

[email protected]

No, its not. Brian Thompson wasn't a legislator. He was a civillian who made money off of others hardships.

[email protected]

Do you think killing someone is political only if the targets are politicians?

[email protected]

Technically, he is a terrorist, since he targeted a civilian for political or ideological reasons. Doesn't change the fact that his victim was absolute scum.

katy ✨

they also charged martin luther king jr, nelson mandela, and gandhi with terrorism too so he's in good company.

[email protected]

Well no shit, state-sanctioned terrorism is always legal according to the state that sanctions the terrorism

[email protected]

If the intent of the killing is to change the system or have political outcomes, then it is political.

We have no indications that Luigi wanted anything other than one or maybe a handful more dead CEOs. That does not have political outcomes. Nothing has changed.

[email protected]

I've had this issue in a story I'm writing, because one faction in this story is fighting for a cause that's essentially good, but they've become extremely jaded by lack of change and have resorted to extremely violent measures. So it's obvious the government they're fighting would call them terrorists, but a hundred years later, history should view them with reserved optimism. It's hard to categorize how the narrator and heroes should view them though, since the heroes don't necessarily directly cooperate.

dustycups