Hacker News Reader

Why do people classify this as terrorism? "Terrorism" is usually understood as violence where intended targets are not those killed, but mainly those who watch the news and shiver in fear. And to drive point home, terrorists usually explicitly explain, why do they want people to be afraid of them, and what do they want. Nothing like this happened in this case; so — why "terrorism" label in the first place?

View on HN

Here's another "fun" example. Some of our early uses of the term were to describe the KKK, which was and remains a terrorist organization par excellence. Except that the clandestine nature of the group, and thus the need for its members to lead superficially normal lives within the community, does not lend itself to claiming responsibility for attacks in the sense we associate with jihadist organizations. A classic example is the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963, which was perpetrated. The communities targeted by Klan members don't need to know exactly who was responsible for the violence to have its intended effect.

> The communities targeted by Klan members don't need to know exactly who was responsible for the violence to have its intended effect.

Hm, you're right. So — the point is not to claim the responsibility, but to make sure that everyone knows what political message is there behind the violence. Which is still not something that applies in LaGuardia case.

Aside from the usual difficulties in defining a word so politically loaded, this is a problematic heuristic. The Pan Am Flight 103 bombing was claimed by at least three groups, before being traced back to Libya. Gaddafi, for his part, didn't acknowledge responsibility until 2003.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com