[chroem-]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate or suppress political opponents. With that in mind, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is simply an ideological framework for justifying terrorism. You can respond to violence with violence, but responding to words with violence is a game-breaking attack on the foundations of a civil society. We exist as a society because we have a shared expectation that others won't respond to our words with violence.

[pmoriarty]

"Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate or suppress political opponents."

Is it really? Then I suppose war is terrorism, and the military is a terrorist organization.

If you respond that the definition only applies to non-state actors, I have to ask: why does the state get a free pass to do the same thing? Not legally or practically, but ethically. Why?

[chroem-]

The war on terrorism was a response to violence, not words. Please re-read my post.