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.
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.
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.
they also charged martin luther king jr, nelson mandela, and gandhi with terrorism too so he’s in good company.
The real terrorists are the CEOs and the US government
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.
