As I began to read I was a bit confused with how tyrannicide and terrorism were being explained and even compared. Even from the tittle, which is “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism. I immediately thought about the recent cases of terrorists we have seen today like the one in El Paso. But to my surprise, the article said nothing remotely close to what I thought terrorism was. So, I had to look up the definition of “Tyrannicide.” Tyrannicide: the killing of a tyrant. Then I had to look up the definition of a “Tyrant.” Tyrant: a cruel and oppressive ruler.
As I continued reading I was intrigued by how the terms were being used. On page 396 it stated, “tyrannicide and terrorist assassination are distinguished and linked together as antecedent and consequent in a historical chain of causality.” This helped me understand how and in what context terrorism was being used. All in all, and like today I understood that people have and will always have different interpretations of words as they are identified in their environment and community.
Your final statement was a reasonable conclusion to make. “Terrorism” is one of those terms that has a concrete definition, yet it can be interpreted ambiguously due to varying cultures, beliefs and ideologies. It also made sense for tyrannicide and terrorism to be symbiotic concepts in relation to each other.