If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?
Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That’s harm.
Maybe not a lot of harm. But it’s harm.
Still not violence
It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.
Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.