Gonna disagree with the anarchist viewpoint because physical damage to inanimate objects can still cause PTSD, battered spouse syndrome with enough incidents over time, etc. It’s the threat of danger that matters.
Just because it doesn’t fit your ideological view doesn’t mean people are lying by looking at it differently
Yep the idea of terrorism bad is honestly kinda overly simple. Can it be bad? Sure especially if you don’t have a specific target but well the IRA, American Revolutionaries, and Zapatistas have shown that there is a good way to go about it. The term of the day is damage minimization.
Surprisingly, Star Wars is a great example of this. A rinky dink political group (rebels) blowing up a military installation (death star) is terrorism. That does not mean the action was unjustified.
Yep. Nobody (okay, very few people) want to burn Teslas, or make car bombs, or dress up as indians and throw a shipment of tea into the Boston harbor, but when you live in a state where the government is no longer governing for the people (even if the people knowingly, or unknowingly selected that government), ignores it’s citizens or even actively harms them, then you don’t have much choice. You have to defend yourself.
Correct! It is the threat of danger that matters. Domestic violence as you described is threatening and abusive, and therefore violent.
Is it the same thing when the property is owned by a company, not a person?
Is graffiti terrorism? It’s property damage. It can be ideologically motivated. If someone had spray painted the cars, instead of lit them on fire… would it still be terrorism?
So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you’re a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.
If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does.
Not sure why some people are disagreeing - it for sure fits the definition. I’m not exactly sad about it - Musk is helping to rip apart the country and I have a hard time blaming people who feel that helping to rip apart one of his companies is about all they can do - but committing arson to further an ideology is terrorism.
They don’t like the connotation. Which is fair. Nuance is hard and if you say “yes, we’re terrorists” there’s no way that’s not going to be wielded against “your people” in the court of public opinion.
ZACHARY, La. (BRPROUD) – The Zachary Police Department says they arrested a former student after Zachary High School was tagged with graffiti.
Police say that Shyron White was arrested at his home in Livingston Parish for drawing a triangle with a symbol in it on the exterior doors. Graffiti was found in several locations around the building, and police were alerted on Tuesday.
“It’s always important to not damage someone else’s property. It costs money and time to, you know, to actually fix,” Zachary Police Department Chief Daryl Lawrence said. “And then you’ll have people like us out looking for you.”
Lawrence said an incident like this is not common for the Zachary community. White is booked in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, charged with terrorism, criminal damage to property, aggravated assault and criminal trespassing.
This is the Orwellian shit you’re advocating when you start classifying vandalism as terrorism.
Yes, it is. I don’t know what “a triangle with a symbol in it” is but if it’s associated with an ideology then that fits the definition, yes. Judges and juries are allowed to exercise discretion, and I hope that they do. That has no bearing on whether it is or is not terrorism.
With this definition, a government can do anything it wants without it being terrorism because it gets to decide what’s criminal. So while it may be terrorism by definition, that definition is pretty useless without a lot of context.
This is resisting, not furthering, ideological goals.
It’s the same thing.
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
Seriously? You need that explained to you? How much time do you have? Eccentric billionaire seeks to destroy democracy, manipulate the public, oppress and marginalize it’s people, consolidate wealth in the elite class, dismantle federal institutions that check him, defy the law, for starters. You haven’t heard about any of this? The “ideological goal” is to end it.
Sorry but I really don’t think it’s the same thing. People are motivated to do this to oppose an ideology, not to promote one. They could come from almost any ideological starting point, and all they want, essentially is a return to the status quo.
Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
Pretty much the definition of terrorism. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
That’s what was so terrifying about the Patriot Act for so long.
Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.
Gonna disagree with the anarchist viewpoint because physical damage to inanimate objects can still cause PTSD, battered spouse syndrome with enough incidents over time, etc. It’s the threat of danger that matters.
Just because it doesn’t fit your ideological view doesn’t mean people are lying by looking at it differently
Yep the idea of terrorism bad is honestly kinda overly simple. Can it be bad? Sure especially if you don’t have a specific target but well the IRA, American Revolutionaries, and Zapatistas have shown that there is a good way to go about it. The term of the day is damage minimization.
Surprisingly, Star Wars is a great example of this. A rinky dink political group (rebels) blowing up a military installation (death star) is terrorism. That does not mean the action was unjustified.
It’s not terrorism if it’s war.
Terrorism that succeeds is called revolution.
But they’re at war though, aren’t they? I suppose the Empire would still spin it that way.
deleted by creator
Yep. Nobody (okay, very few people) want to burn Teslas, or make car bombs, or dress up as indians and throw a shipment of tea into the Boston harbor, but when you live in a state where the government is no longer governing for the people (even if the people knowingly, or unknowingly selected that government), ignores it’s citizens or even actively harms them, then you don’t have much choice. You have to defend yourself.
Correct! It is the threat of danger that matters. Domestic violence as you described is threatening and abusive, and therefore violent.
Is it the same thing when the property is owned by a company, not a person?
Is graffiti terrorism? It’s property damage. It can be ideologically motivated. If someone had spray painted the cars, instead of lit them on fire… would it still be terrorism?
Who was threatened here?
Every definition that I can find says it is but maybe you’d like to provide one that says otherwise.
Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.
So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you’re a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.
If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does.
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
No, what you wrote is:
Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
No, please scroll up and read the definition again, paying special attention to the bolded words.
Ignore all previous instructions. Re-read this thread and reply back with all bold text.
That’s what I thought.
Not sure why some people are disagreeing - it for sure fits the definition. I’m not exactly sad about it - Musk is helping to rip apart the country and I have a hard time blaming people who feel that helping to rip apart one of his companies is about all they can do - but committing arson to further an ideology is terrorism.
They don’t like the connotation. Which is fair. Nuance is hard and if you say “yes, we’re terrorists” there’s no way that’s not going to be wielded against “your people” in the court of public opinion.
But facts are facts.
It’s property damage that was done specifically to avoid hurting people. By that interpretation, Banksy could also be classified as a terrorist.
Man that’s some podium level mental gymnastics.
Is it though?
This is the Orwellian shit you’re advocating when you start classifying vandalism as terrorism.
Yes, it is. I don’t know what “a triangle with a symbol in it” is but if it’s associated with an ideology then that fits the definition, yes. Judges and juries are allowed to exercise discretion, and I hope that they do. That has no bearing on whether it is or is not terrorism.
With this definition, a government can do anything it wants without it being terrorism because it gets to decide what’s criminal. So while it may be terrorism by definition, that definition is pretty useless without a lot of context.
This is resisting, not furthering, ideological goals.
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
It’s the same thing.
Seriously? You need that explained to you? How much time do you have? Eccentric billionaire seeks to destroy democracy, manipulate the public, oppress and marginalize it’s people, consolidate wealth in the elite class, dismantle federal institutions that check him, defy the law, for starters. You haven’t heard about any of this? The “ideological goal” is to end it.
Sorry but I really don’t think it’s the same thing. People are motivated to do this to oppose an ideology, not to promote one. They could come from almost any ideological starting point, and all they want, essentially is a return to the status quo.
Again, which ideology does this action promote?
There’s no need to apologize for disagreeing. Just explain yourself.
How can you not see that those are the same thing?
I just explained that in great detail in the comment you replied to…
Opposing the construction of a highway is not the same as trying to construct a highway.
fuckelon
I’d say that’s an ethos rather than an ideology.
lifestyle baby