Hacker News Reader

> [...] urban terrorism. If it doesn't leave any trace and it can penetrate walls, [...]

That's obviously bad, but it's not really terrorism. There's no one universally agreed on definition of terrorism, but instilling terror is commonly a big part, and for that you want people to notice.

View on HN

It's not terrifying to take EM brain-damage, have no way of proving it even in principle, and alienate your loved ones, employer, polity etc.?

It's the distinction between the terror of the victim, and the terror of the witnesses.

Perhaps you want people to notice for overt action, but deniability is useful for covert action. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be considered a hostile act, and if it results in what would otherwise appear to be a psychosomatic illness that causes distress in order to muddy the waters to conceal the affiliation of the actors involved, I think it’s fair to call it a terror attack.

Yes, it would be a hostile act. But it wouldn't be terrorism.

Not everything bad is terrorism.

I think many people would go along with dragging anyone responsible for funding or terrorizing people with this stuff out into the streets by their hair.

Not sure I’m expecting an “oh yeah haha, about that-“ anytime soon.

At least not until everyone’s welded inside their homes like China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com