Historically speaking, who was the most influancial terrorist?

I think in general, i would define terrorism as when an actor, who is not publicly sanctioned or acknowledged by a state, uses acts of violence against civil society to achieve political goals.

Things get a little murky when you talk about state involvement, but if there is no public involvement, I would call it terrorism.

So, for example:
>Syrian barrel-bombing civilians isn't terrorism, it's just dictatorship
>unacknowledged paramilitaries/death squads like Gladio is terrorism.
Civil society can't hold politicians to account if they can't be aware of state sanctioning.

>ISIS in Syria/Iraq wasn't terrorism when they held and administered territory
>ISIS attacks in Europe are terrorism, because the actors are independent of actual ISIS
I would ignore political concepts like (((legitimacy))) and (((recognition))) because it's nebulous bullshit. ISIS was de facto a country that controlled territory.

>attacking military targets on active service isn't terrorism, eg. Israeli patrols in Gaza
>attacking civil police, or military who are nonactive or involved in civil work is terrorism, eg. knife attacks on Israeli police, Lee Rugby, the shooting up of that recruitment office
Basically, the military elements that are targeted have to be ready and capable, or at least have the capacity to do you harm, for it to not be terrorism but a legitimate target.

>Gang violence or profit-driven criminal activity isn't terrorism
The media likes to conflate the two for clickbaity headlines sometimes.

Why are left-wingers?

Wouldn't that be Augustus? Julius was just a dictator.

Not terrorism.

Terrorism must target a group's civilians and/or infrastructure, as well as being ideologically driven.

/thread
Terrorism has become 100% meaningless as a label. When groups that haven't harmed anybody yet have extremist values can be labelled terrorists, yet mass-murdering organizations aren't just because they do it for the "right reasons", you know the system is flawed.

real answer coming through

...

...

Starting with the second question first, I would define a terrorist as a:

>Political actor, who does not represent a state, attempting to use violence in order to bring about coercive political change.

For the record, "Coercive" in this context means that he is not attempting to directly control things that he is attempting to change. Someone who is trying to form a new state by forming a band of men, killing anyone who opposes them, and holding the territory that they are attempting to claim is not acting coerciviely, but controllingly (and is thus not a terrorist.) Coercive political action attempts to make another actor decide that whatever the course of action involved in isn't worth enduring continued terrorist attacks, and stops doing whatever it is.

By that definition, I would argue that John Brown was the most influential terrorist of all time, as his raids, especially on Harper's Ferry, did a hell of a lot to push the ACW forward. But I would note that I am American and thus possibly overly exaggerate the importance of American history.

> When groups that haven't harmed anybody yet have extremist values can be labelled terrorists,

What did he mean by this ?

this

...

but you missed the most important distinction

>Islam
>White

>Amerimutt alt-kikers
>white

Assassination >>>> Terrorism
prove me wrong faggots

Does Lenin count as a terrorist?

that isnt a gecko

Sounds like somebody's in for a pecko

...