So what form does the resistance take?

[The Great Zaganza]

Look up the definition of terrorism

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I have. Also Beau of the Fifth Column has given me a lengthy education. Terrorism is when non-state actors kill (predoninately) innocent people to provoke an over-reaction. It's not an edgy term that means 'when people I don't like use force against someone'. Especially not while also refusing to call actual terrorists terrorists ('those people firing rockets into daycares are just ReSiStAnCe FiGhTeRs!!1').

Before you whip out dictionary definitions, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. See the famous example of literally no longer meaning literally.

Eta: before the strawmen come, none of the above means it's okay to kill innocent people.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I have. Also Beau of the Fifth Column has given me a lengthy education. Terrorism is when non-state actors kill (predoninately) innocent people to provoke an over-reaction. It's not an edgy term that means 'when people I don't like use force against someone'. Especially not while also refusing to call actual terrorists terrorists ('those people firing rockets into daycares are just ReSiStAnCe FiGhTeRs!!1').

Before you whip out dictionary definitions, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. See the famous example of literally no longer meaning literally.

Eta: before the strawmen come, none of the above means it's okay to kill innocent people.

State terrorism is most definitely a thing. The UK practice it in South East Asia, Africa and the six counties at the end of empire and also during conflicts world wide during the growth of it. And look at Israel, its whole modus vivendi is terrorism.

Terrorism is any systemic violence practiced by one group on another, whether that group is a state or non-state actor.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, and, if terrorism is state-only, what was Anders Breivik shooting up Utøya? A peaceful tourist visit?

State terrorism is most definitely a thing. The UK practice it in South East Asia, Africa and the six counties at the end of empire and also during conflicts world wide during the growth of it. And look at Israel, its whole modus vivendi is terrorism.

We can perfectly well condemn Israel's horrible crimes without calling them terrorism, though. That's my problem with that term as it's used today, it's been watered down so much it's lost all meaning and now to a lot of people just means 'when someone I don't like does something horrible', while the same people will tie themselves into pretzels to avoid calling people on their side terrorists. A HAMAS suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of school children? Just a totally legitimate resistance fighter, like the ones in World War II.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If the only difference is State vs non-State actor, then it's just a question of whether you consider the government legitimate or not.
Fact is that States have always terrorised their own population - be it peasants, workers, minorities, migrants.
And in war, terrorizing the enemy has a name: Shock&Awe.
It makes no sense to make a distinction based on who is doing the terrorizing when the methods and goals are identical.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Oh, and, if terrorism is state-only, what was Anders Breivik shooting up Utøya? A peaceful tourist visit?


We can perfectly well condemn Israel's horrible crimes without calling them terrorism, though. That's my problem with that term as it's used today, it's been watered down so much it's lost all meaning and now to a lot of people just means 'when someone I don't like does something horrible', while the same people will tie themselves into pretzels to avoid calling people on their side terrorists. A HAMAS suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of school children? Just a totally legitimate resistance fighter, like the ones in World War II.

Not describing Israel as a terrorist state is what waters down the meaning of terrorism.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You're making my point for me. Aren't all the other words we can use to describe the horrible things they do strong enough? Genocide, war crimes, occupation, wanton attacks on civilians, including children, deliberate starvation, unlawful detention, the list goes on? Why does it have to be the t-word?

@The Great Zaganza even admitted above there's another perfectly usable word that can be used instead, so why insist on terrorism instead of shock and awe?

Fact is that States have always terrorised their own population - be it peasants, workers, minorities, migrants.

So now we're watering down the word even more. Pray tell, how have states (all states, even!) always terrorized their workers and peasants? I live in Norway and have fallen into both classes and have never felt terrorized. Is it the taxes? Forced lunch breaks and paid 25 day vacations? This dirtbag in my hometown is shutting down a beloved cafe because his workers tried to unionize, does that count as terrorism? If so, what punishment do you want for these terrorists? Should we send them to the Hague?

Admit it, you're just taking the piss at this point.

If the only difference is State vs non-State actor, then it's just a question of whether you consider the government legitimate or not.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't change the definition of the word, even though you and many others for some reason want to water it down as much as you can.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

You're making my point for me. Aren't all the other words we can use to describe the horrible things they do strong enough? Genocide, war crimes, occupation, wanton attacks on civilians, including children, deliberate starvation, unlawful detention, the list goes on? Why does it have to be the t-word?

@The Great Zaganza even admitted above there's another perfectly usable word that can be used instead, so why insist on terrorism instead of shock and awe?


So now we're watering down the word even more. Pray tell, how have states (all states, even!) always terrorized their workers and peasants? I live in Norway and have fallen into both classes and have never felt terrorized. Is it the taxes? Forced lunch breaks and paid 25 day vacations? This dirtbag in my hometown is shutting down a beloved cafe because his workers tried to unionize, does that count as terrorism? If so, what punishment do you want for these terrorists? Should we send them to the Hague?

Admit it, you're just taking the piss at this point.


Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't change the definition of the word, even though you and many others for some reason want to water it down as much as you can.

People don't like my preferred words: national socialism. So I revert to the next most accurate.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You're making my point for me. Aren't all the other words we can use to describe the horrible things they do strong enough? Genocide, war crimes, occupation, wanton attacks on civilians, including children, deliberate starvation, unlawful detention, the list goes on? Why does it have to be the t-word?

@The Great Zaganza even admitted above there's another perfectly usable word that can be used instead, so why insist on terrorism instead of shock and awe?


So now we're watering down the word even more. Pray tell, how have states (all states, even!) always terrorized their workers and peasants? I live in Norway and have fallen into both classes and have never felt terrorized. Is it the taxes? Forced lunch breaks and paid 25 day vacations? This dirtbag in my hometown is shutting down a beloved cafe because his workers tried to unionize, does that count as terrorism? If so, what punishment do you want for these terrorists? Should we send them to the Hague?

Admit it, you're just taking the piss at this point.


Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't change the definition of the word, even though you and many others for some reason want to water it down as much as you can.

you are mixing things up.

Genocide, war crimes, occupation, wanton attacks on civilians, including children, deliberate starvation, unlawful detention, etc. are all forms of terror. Complete extermination of an enemy is basically unheard of, but breaking the will of an opponent to the point where they are unable to form any resistance is the goal of States and non-State actors when they don't want to negotiate and compromise.

All you say about working benefits came literally by the blood of striking workers being blown up, gunned down, imprisoned and hanged.
Amazon creating a surveillance state in their warehouses, threaten people who pee for to long and send private detectives to subvert and intimidate anyone even reading about Unions prove that you cannot take your progress of Workers' Rights for granted.

International Law makes it difficult to punish countries for what they do in their own borders to their own people.
but it's no question that many countries are breaking International Human Rights through exploitation and defacto slave labor.
And yes, they could be dragged in front of the ICC and probably should.

 

[steenkh]

My own definition of terrorism is attacking random persons belonging to an enemy group in order to spread fear.

But unfortunately, I can't impose that definition on everybody else.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think randomness comes into it: terrorism is constraint by opposing security.
The reason why seemingly innocent bystanders are often targeted is because more meaningful targets have too much security.

See Colonists attacking the women and children of Native American Villages while the men are fighting elsewhere.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So about that resistance...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

But unfortunately, I can't impose that definition on everybody else.

Hate it when that happens.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tell me EC: what kinds of property damage are worse than hurting and killing people?

Worse? I'd say very few... but destruction of homes and vehicles and such can have widespread long-term consequences. If for example, a small corner store that provides groceries and necessary supplies to a neighborhood is burnt to the ground, that negatively affects the entire community. Killing the owner of that store would be appalling, and I certainly don't condone it - but if it's only the owner of the store who gets killed, the impact is overall lower.

My point is that those of you who seem very sanguine about the destruction of private property really aren't thinking through the damage that is done to:
1) innocent people who aren't the cause of whatever you're railing against and can't change it
2) the community that bears the burden of the loss that has been imposed upon
3) the erosion of the social contract and trust in society as a whole

 

[Emily's Cat]

In Capitalism, we are supposed to "leverage all our assets".

An Amazon warehouse worker has the means and skills to burn down a $500millon building.

I think this fact should be reflected in the compensation if you have your shareholder's interests in mind.

It's a fundamental mistake to not share your profits with those who can make sure that you have no profit at all.
It's as if CEOs had never heard of the Ultimatum Game.

So reward terrorists for punishing innocent third parties? Yep, sounds like a really great foundation for a stable society.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Terrorism has always been by a wide margin what States do against each and against parts of their own population.

Sucky countries like China and Russia and Iran, maybe. But not western-style democracies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

People don't like my preferred words: national socialism. So I revert to the next most accurate.

I don't think you understand that people don't dislike your preferred words. They disagree that they're an accurate and appropriate description.

Then again, rational representations of reality haven't been popular with the "you're a nazi!!!!" crowd for a few decades now, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't get this.

 

[Donal]

Right, because when the US conducts military strikes against governments we're mad at, we never kill innocent civilians

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So reward terrorists for punishing innocent third parties? Yep, sounds like a really great foundation for a stable society.

Capitalism is rewarding companies for withholding life-saving medicine from those who cannot pay them enough to make a massive profit - and you have no problem with that. Burning down a warehouse in contrast doesn't kill anyone.

Sucky countries like China and Russia and Iran, maybe. But not western-style democracies.

ICE is send to terrorize Cities Trump doesn't like.
US history is full of instances when the State sent in the National Guard to force workers on strike back to work, killing hundreds, including their families.
And, of course, the Genocide of the Native Americans.

If you think the US is not engaged in Terrorism domestically when it suits it you are just in a very comfortable place where it don't affect you when it does.
Privilege has its perks.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, because when the US conducts military strikes against governments we're mad at, we never kill innocent civilians

And here I made the mistake of thinking that you understood the distinction between collateral civilian damage while targeting government, military, and military-supporting infrastructure... and targeting civilians on purpose.