https://gulfif.org/the-next-casualty-of-the-red-sea-attacks-...
What's the practical effect of this? Other than some inconvenient latency and decreased redundancy...not as much as the headlines suggested?
I don't know how this is on front page.
Nobody was physically harmed and it shouldn't have any real effect on essential or life preserving services (unless those services are incredibly poorly designed at which point the developers/maintainers should be held at fault).
Terrorism has never been exclusively categorized as mass casualty attacks (and that's a relatively recent phenomenon, compared to the 70s and 80s with hijackings).
[1] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
Terrorism is when people use terror for political purposes. While it is often synonymous with crime, the "terror" part is rather critical. Most often, the terror is over the target's personal safety, or that of the target's loved ones.
Having an undersea cable cut does not terrify a sane person without extenuating circumstances. Therefore it may be an act of war, but it is not terrorism in the slightest.
Redefining "terrorism" for the purposes of treating lesser criminals under harsh terrorism laws is unethical, immoral, unjust, and downright awful.
"The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Yep. This is vandalism, not terrorism.
What about a building? A government office? An empty school?
Or here's a better question: what then do you call the use of criminal means, for political purposes, to gain compliance from local population and political authorities, when it doesn't include direct harm against humans and focuses on destruction of property?
What do you think the intent behind that was?
Taking out a communication cable is not that by any stretch of your quite substantial definitions below.
Objectively intended to coerce or intimidate governments: do as you're told if you want to have a viable economy, because so much of today's economy relies on communication.
Of course it is, that's been covered upthread.
Literally the post you're replying to says:
> It's categorically terrorism by that definition.
So, to be clear:
It's categorically terrorism.
Another BS.
You are forgetting "violence" in that definition. Bar that any attempt to influence government is a terrorism.
Were this to rise in severity from "nuisance", what would you describe that feeling as? What reaction do you think commonly provokes people exposed to negative stimuli into action they don't otherwise want to take?
OH! And French farmers are terrorists too according to your definition of terrorism and violence.
Maybe violence against people and violence against stuff shouldn't be treated the same.
But filling Betancourt's swimming pool with pork shit was not terrorism, since it isn't infrastructure?
2. I don't know