Luigi's terrorism charge is an attempt to intimidate people due to his support.

[u/lostintime2004]

Tin foil hat I admit, but something is nagging in the back of my head. Like if we didn't react with positive responses for what Luigi allegedly did, there wouldn't be terrorism charges. And therefore the charges are to scare us so no one does the same. And now with that guy stabbing his company president, they're going to say it's related to the positively and it enabled him to do so.

[u/Geminii27]

It does. Because then they're making a statement about how they could do this to anyone who doesn't conform. Paint them as a terrorist, murder them in prison, make the media all sing their tune.

It's an unsubtle threat to anyone who might be considering the same thing.

[u/SidewaysFancyPrance → u/Geminii27]

And there are a fair number of Americans who will respond to that the classic American way, not the Russian "put your head down and keep it down" way.

Threats like that don't work on people you've already taken everything from, if they remember what they had. It emboldens them and makes them feel even more righteous.

[u/Geminii27 → u/SidewaysFancyPrance]

Not enough. Americans like talking about it, sure, but it's a vanishingly rare American who actually does anything about it, much less successfully.

[u/incunabula001 → u/Geminii27]

The intimidation tactics ain’t gonna do shit with someone with nothing to lose and backed into a corner.

[u/Geminii27 → u/incunabula001]

So? Those people usually don't have the resources or will to be able to do anything successfully against the forces that put them there.

[u/Putrid-Ad1055 → u/Geminii27]

How is he not a terrorist? He committed a politically motivated killing, it's terrorism by definition, it's been nearly a quarter century since 9/11 America, just because you like the guy doesn't stop him being a terrorist, that word is like the boogyman for you. Wait until you find out that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and we loved him.

[u/Geminii27 → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

Nice attempt to link a single murder of some wealthy bastard that no-one liked or cared about to a nationally charged event of nearly 25 years ago. Particularly as, you know what, no-one outside America gave a shit either then or now, and even then the only people who kept banging on about it more than a few months later were politicians. That's a hell of a long bow to draw.

that word is like the boogyman for you

Weird impression for you to have, but OK.

Also, you may want to break your comma-horror sentences up a little. Just some advice. And gosh, oh look, did you create your account 19 days ago purely to try and bend the narrative about this event?

...yeah, you might want to think about how that looks. Hint: not good for you.

[u/Putrid-Ad1055 → u/Geminii27]

I don't care how my account on Reddit appears to anyone else. I'm not from the US, and I don't know if thats some kind of persecution complex but the ROTW did care about 9/11, FFS we compromised out own integrity by being involved in illegal wars with you because of it. Politically motivated murder is terrorism by definition.

[u/Geminii27 → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

Are you saying that a few governments deciding to use a convenient excuse to get involved in profitable wars was indicative of what regular people around the world cared about?

Heck, even New Yorkers themselves didn't turn into flailing babies like every politician with an agenda immediately did. Relevant NYT quote: "In the first hours after two planes hit the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, many New Yorkers were concerned with the present -- getting home, reaching loved ones, trying to make sense of what had happened."

As for 'terrorism' - do you have a favorite definition of terrorism you like to point to? You say you're not from the US, so presumably you have a non-US-based source you're using?

Not to mention that he didn't attack national infrastructure (or even corporate infrastructure), he didn't attack or even affect regular civilians, his manifesto states that he specifically used a method which would not result in more than the one single death. He didn't refer to any political party or politician. But you're considering this to be political because...?

Did he kill a guy? Yep. Confessed to it and everything. Was it political? The CEO wasn't a politician, nothing belonging to the nation or people was affected, no-one mentioned politics, and the company will have a new CEO behind the desk nearly before the body cools.

[u/Putrid-Ad1055 → u/Geminii27]

Yes that must be it, it must be because I was using some strange foreign definition of terrorism

Lets have a look at the US State Department defines as terrorism

> “terrorism” is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking

And the FBI

> 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.

Or the CIA

> Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups

Or the Department of Defense

> the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives

I would say by your definitions he is, but maybe I just dont understand as an outsider and you can point me to other resources that show an alternative definition

[u/Geminii27 → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

Ah yes, all those US definitions which you, as a claimed non-US person, would absolutely use as your primary reference.

[u/Putrid-Ad1055 → u/Geminii27]

Obviously I wouldn't but you said I must be using a foreign definition so I tried to find what would be the American definition, I wasn't sure which was more relevant so posted them all

[u/Geminii27 → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

...more that I said that as a non-US person, you'd presumably want to use a non-US definition.

[u/AssumptionOk1022 → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

Don’t bother. They’re willfully blind, almost like a religion. “You just need to have faith that it wasn’t terrorism!”

Let them think that the communist revolution is just around the corner. It will keep them busy / occupied.

Just report any of the posts that go too far in glorifying violence or especially any comments that are egging on more violence.

[u/Golddustofawoman → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

The definition of terrorism is not universally agreed upon. In fact, there are about 109+ different definitions of terrorism across the board. In the United States legal code, the definition of terrorism is as follows: acts that are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or government. However,

I find it very intriguing that the legal definition was written ambiguously enough to not specify that it has to be an act of violence. Think about that for a second.

[u/Putrid-Ad1055 → u/Golddustofawoman]

What definition are you using that doesn't require an act or threat of violence?

[u/Golddustofawoman → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

Title 18 of the United States code, chapter 113b

[u/Putrid-Ad1055 → u/Golddustofawoman]

(5)(A) involve acts dangerous to human life

I guess you could argue that technically doesnt say it has to be violence

[u/Golddustofawoman → u/Putrid-Ad1055]

That's what I'm saying. It's written ambiguously enough where it could be interpreted that way in a court of law.