https://gulfif.org/the-next-casualty-of-the-red-sea-attacks-...
What's the practical effect of this? Other than some inconvenient latency and decreased redundancy...not as much as the headlines suggested?
I don't know how this is on front page.
Nobody was physically harmed and it shouldn't have any real effect on essential or life preserving services (unless those services are incredibly poorly designed at which point the developers/maintainers should be held at fault).
Terrorism has never been exclusively categorized as mass casualty attacks (and that's a relatively recent phenomenon, compared to the 70s and 80s with hijackings).
[1] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
Terrorism is when people use terror for political purposes. While it is often synonymous with crime, the "terror" part is rather critical. Most often, the terror is over the target's personal safety, or that of the target's loved ones.
Having an undersea cable cut does not terrify a sane person without extenuating circumstances. Therefore it may be an act of war, but it is not terrorism in the slightest.
Redefining "terrorism" for the purposes of treating lesser criminals under harsh terrorism laws is unethical, immoral, unjust, and downright awful.
"The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Yep. This is vandalism, not terrorism.
