Using violence to attempt to cause a regime change without formally declaring war, sounds much more like the traditional definition of terrorism to me [although maybe not the perfect fit], then randsomware which sounds like organized crime to me.
> Using violence to attempt to cause a regime change without formally declaring war, sounds much more like the traditional definition of terrorism
Or insurrection.
Unless we're talking about some fourth-world wish-we-had-even-bananas republic, there will be geopolitics in play. The rebelling groups are almost certainly being funded, either directly or indirectly, by foreign governments.
Those rebels, are they terrorists or freedom fighters? Are the foreign governments funding terrorism or supporting unnecessarily violent grass-roots opposition? Where does political meddling end and waging a covert war begin?
Sorry, to be clear. The definition of terrorism that most people are used to is the one that involves attacking people not anywhere in the government leadership hierarchy. For example, blowing up a commuter bus serves no purpose to take over a regime (unless the president was on that bus). The end goal is purely to cause fear.
Trying to quickly or quietly overthrow a government is pretty much the opposite of that effect. You want a quick change and the end goal is power, not fear for the sake of fear.
Governments can fall if the people feel they aren't protected, although in practise that rarely happens. Groups like the FLQ, IRA, etc may have bombed civilian targets that really didn't have to do with the government, but they were still clearly aiming at political change.
Which groups do you think is fear for the sake of fear? Lots of groups are characterized that way for propaganda purposes, and deep down inside there are probably more than a few that just want the world to burn, but im not sure any exist that literally claim to just want to cause fear without tying it to some broader political goals.
> Trying to quickly or quietly overthrow a government is pretty much the opposite of that effect
I agree generally that quiet coups aren't generally in the terrorism category, but i still think they have much more in common with terrorism than (apolitical) ransomware does.
