Terrorism specifically has a negative connotation with it. You could just as easily call him a revolutionary. The only difference between “revolutionary” and "terrorist’ is whether you like the guy.
Again, we seem to be agreeing. But if his motives were based on promoting his political beliefs, whether or not they’re correct, whether or not the actions are justified and for the greater good, and regardless of how the government defines it, it’s terrorism. You correctly point out that he could also be called a revolutionary as the difference is largely whether or not you agree with him…but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a form of terrorism and people are getting upset that he is being charged with terrorism…which it is, and you would expect the government to use the word with the negative connotation here.
Terrorism specifically has a negative connotation with it. You could just as easily call him a revolutionary. The only difference between “revolutionary” and "terrorist’ is whether you like the guy.
deleted by creator
I don’t disagree, but he’s not being charged with revolutionaryism and people are arguing that it’s not “terrorism” so it’s kind of besides the point.
The law does not define the definition of common words. Despite what the law says, ketchup is not a vegetable.
Again, we seem to be agreeing. But if his motives were based on promoting his political beliefs, whether or not they’re correct, whether or not the actions are justified and for the greater good, and regardless of how the government defines it, it’s terrorism. You correctly point out that he could also be called a revolutionary as the difference is largely whether or not you agree with him…but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a form of terrorism and people are getting upset that he is being charged with terrorism…which it is, and you would expect the government to use the word with the negative connotation here.