Hardly.
Terrorists attack targets unrelated to their direct enemy in order to cause fear, civil unrest, motivate sympathizers (ie revenge), etc.
Revolutionaries attack their direct enemy with the purpose of killing them, or interrupting their operations.
Increase of repression will hasten the onset of revolution, and thereby their own deaths. The problem with their logic is self-correcting in that way.
Quite wrong.
You completely confuse the issue. Are civilians killed by a government 'their direct enemy'? Is training people to commit torture of civilians, terrorism? Are attacks to hurt the morale of people who can help or hurt a war effort terrorism? Are Israelis who bulldoze Palestinian homes as a control measure terrorists? Was the French resistance destroying the economic function of their country terrorism? Was the Nazi genocide not terrorism because it 'directly' attacked who they said was their enemy?
There are all kinds of issues. Basically, there are many approaches to fighting an enemy, and many tools which make more or less sense depending on your situation.
But the destabilization of countries is a common approach to try to overthrow a government. That can mean assassinating police, or killing doctors, or making food scarce; in Venezuela, the rich and US companies attempted an overthrow by crippling the economy for months, hoping the angry public would take it out by removing the President. You could even motivate revolt with promises of rewards.
You have a very simplistic and false position that 'repression is discouraged because it will cause revolt and cost them their lives'.
You can find some examples of that. But Stalin wasn't assassinated. Mao wasn't assassinated. Saddam wasn't assassinated, nor Noriega nor Pinochet, nor the Shah.
The large majority of repressive leaders have not been assassinated. Repression is the only way generally for them to keep power.
You tell the people of any of the dictatorships how it's 'self-correcting', and they can slap you in disgust at your dismissive attitude toward their suffering.
Take 9/11 - that was pretty 'directly' aimed - your criterion for revolution versus terrorism - at the US military, political and economic top locations. So they're not terrorists?
And you don't agree with them, nor did they 'win' and take over the US (not that they were trying to), so you would not call them revolutionaries.
Look at the history of revolution, and you will find it filled with the grass roots assassination of police, or mayors and local functionaries, to disrupt the authority of the government targeted, to build support for the revolution. The US has built forces - from South Vietnam to the Contras in Nicaragua - to do exactly that sort of terrorism.
No, the issue is not simple, and is more like I said. You can find clear examples on either side - the American revolution serves pretty well for a revolution, and the assassination of Jewish Athletes at the Olympics was a pretty clear example of terrorism. But there's a big gray area.
and you still act like you knew all along why he did it ...pathetic. You did exactly the same thing people are crying about over Sherron, make an assumption based on your politics without all the facts.
Facebook
Twitter