It's categorically terrorism by that definition.

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.

>"It's categorically terrorism by that definition."

Another BS.

You are forgetting "violence" in that definition. Bar that any attempt to influence government is a terrorism.

I mean, cutting cables is a violent act, property destruction is violence. Unless we're going to go with the weird reddit anarchist definition in which you can destroy whole structures and it isn't violence if nobody gets hurt because property isn't real, man

So the yellow vest were terrorists, as were the red caps. Which is funny, because that last movement was supported by 3 of the richest French industrialist. Can we nationalize them for supporting terrorists?

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.

Violence against stuff that is the support infrastructure for people is violence against people.

So 40 years ago, Bretons violent actions against road signs that prevented tourists and French people to recognize places and road names, to bolster their political agenda (dual language signs) is terrorism, since it was clearly against regular French citizens (my father was a terrorist then :/) .

But filling Betancourt's swimming pool with pork shit was not terrorism, since it isn't infrastructure?

1. Correct

2. I don't know

"to inculcate fear" is an essential part of that definition. Using bombers to drop bombs on a sleeping city is terrorism. Dropping bombs onto an undersea cable is not.

> Dropping bombs onto an undersea cable is not.

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.