they also charged martin luther king jr, nelson mandela, and gandhi with terrorism too so he's in good company.
Terrorist is often a boogeyman label for freedom fighter.
Yep.
This and virtually all countries were founded by people who would fit the definition of terrorist.
How history remembers you is solely on the basis of how successful your "terrorism" was.
George Washington is a very well regarded terrorist in modernity.
History is written by victors, not terrorists
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.
It amuses me that the media has no idea how to spin Luigi into the villain of this story.
It means Italians aren't white.
Italians, like the people that populate Italy, don't think of themselves as white. They see themselves as Italian.
Americans of Italian descent have a complicated relationship with "whiteness". White is not a biology. It is a malleable group designed to keep people labeled black underfoot.
Finally we have an answer
And Luigi isn't a man or patriarchy is over. Or maybe there are more than one system of oppression active at the same time and intertwined. We will never know.
I don't consider him a terrorist because I don't consider what he did as a political action.
I agree and also see lots of other acts that are political not get tagged as terrorism.
I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.
I'd argue the US for-profit health insurance system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population, for profit.
What greater way to terrorize a population than to deny them and their families healthcare, under the threat of bankruptcy? How about the threat of bankruptcy either way, whether they're insured or not?
The industry kills 30x 9/11 every year, bankrupts 500k, while stealing 500-700 billion from the population (compared to the public systems of the developed world). At the very least, it's financial terrorism and extortion.
It’s a joke of a charge. Fascist Christian terrorists can shoot up LGBTQ+ people and never be called terrorists by media or charged with it. It’s bullshit and only because he took on our oligarch elite
The point is that terrorism is only applied when it’s convenient for the ruling class. Hate crime murders are similarly politically motivated but don’t get the terrorism label.
Isn't this a straight "eye-for-an-eye" revenge killing?
He was wealthy enough to have no problems paying for all of his surgeries without insurance, tbh. His dad is head of Mangione Enterprise which owns and operates a lot of real estate including large resorts.
He had a Bachelors in Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science.
I think Luigi might have had no intention of advocating healthcare reform, he just wanted to disincentivize people he viewed as evil.
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.
I never noticed that Spongebob's shoulders change position on his body when he raises his arms.
So does that mean his shoulders are actually inside his torso, and he just has really long upper arms?
The real terrorists are the CEOs and the US government
is accused of saying "Delay, deny, depose, you people are next
Which is.... illegal now?
Free speech for me but not for thee, huh?
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.
Doesn't it just mean political violence?
Terrorism?
No.
Terrorism is the targeting of uninvolved civilians to spread fear for political purposes among the population at large. It can get a bit blurry but I'm not afraid of being assassinated for denying healthcare.
Are you?
Now if we want to talk about how carpet or drone bombing campaigns are terrorism that's an interesting conversation but the system is just doing what's it's designed to do, protect the oligarchy no matter what.
