Very, very, very, often the purpose of hate crimes is terrorizing the population the hate crimes are targeting.
See: Lynchings, cross burnings, 16th Street church bombings, etc.
Terrorism targets the in-group, hate crime the out-groups, typically.
Hamas v. Israel. Al Qaeda v. The US. IRA v. The UK.
You sure about that one?
“Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army.”
Hamas and the IRA are smaller, less powerful, so they are terrorists; the Israeli and British militaries are bigger so they aren’t. It’s not about what they do, it’s about who is punching up and who is punching down.
In the US if some white nationalist shoots up a crowd of minority people he won’t be called a terrorist because he’s punching down, he’s reinforcing the social order with every bullet. Shooting one white CEO gets you labeled a terrorist because that’s punching up, it’s going against the social order. It’s violating the most important social rule: never raise a hand against your betters.
The CEO has the right to kill as many people as he likes for profit, and nobody below him has any right to do anything about it. Dying for his profit and pleasure is what they are for.
Okay, fucking whatever. The UK being the terrorists to Ireland still is an example of out-group violence.
Oh, yeah? Where is this right enumerated?
By the actions and attitude of the police and the government. There is no law in the US, there is only power, money and force.
Cite? This website disagrees:
Trump’s President, not in jail. There is no law.
That’s not a cite for there being no law.
It’s also not a cite for this specific claim you made:
Not gonna lie, I’ve always been under the impression the IRA was considered the terrorists in that conflict. Car bombs and the like.
Which Sackler is in prison, again?
Tell it to der_trihs, not me.
Huh? You seem to say that it was the British armed forces that were the terrorists. That may have been true in fact, but that’s not what they were called.
Chronos said that because he initially gave the IRA vs UK example to push back against the assertion that terrorism is generally against the in-group. Der Trihs went off on his standard “terrorists are only terrorists because they’re the little guys, it’s the big guys who are the real terrorists” routine. Chronos decided to short circuit this argument by pointing out that regardless of which side is the terrorist, the UK vs IRA is not an example of in-group on in-group violence. Unfortunately, he didn’t know that by swerving to avoid one tiresome discussion, he’d trigger another.
I think that just about summarizes it.
Except for the name, that’s exactly correct.
Fuck, sorry - I’ve done this before - you’re both mods and at a glance at phone size, your avatars both read as green. And so I routinely mix you guys up. My bad.
No worries.
There are worse people to be confused with (for both of you), at least 
No, they are both terrorists. It’s only the little guy who gets called terrorist because the term is used as a snarl word, not a serious definition.