Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

Because the word terrorism has a universal condemning connotation. Given the tumultuous history of the US and its founding based on militant popular revolt, the history towards political violence has always been ambivalent.

So in cases like this were the militant struggle involved fighting for what we now consider a fundamental right rather than purely barbaric violence, people want to make a distinction from terrorism.

View on HN

The suffragists were making wonderful progress with gaining womens rights. The terrorism of the suffragettes made public favour move away from the suffragists and delayed any progress at best.

Aren't all terrorists fighting for something they hope will become a fundamental right rather than purely barbaric violence? If it was aimless violence, it would just be crime, not terrorism. Terrorism has a political goal.

Depends the original "terrorists" Rusian Nihilists for example had terror as the aim - more recently its targeted as random killing of kids turns off your supporters.

For example the IRA bombs in London where often targeted at economic targets ie look we can cost you so deal with us - ok they also had a go at the PM and almost succeeded a couple of times.

With ISIS its almost a return to the original roots though there is also an element of sectarian almost genocidal which is why targeting medics and children is ok for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com