In the face of the climate crisis and unprecedented wealth inequality we’re imagining, and working toward lives no longer guided and marked by overconsumption, environmental devastation and dreams blocked by lack of opportunity based on economic class. So, yep, I’m anti-fascism and have a problem with capitalism. Does that make me a terrorist?
Terrorism is the use of violence and fear to bring about political or social change. Fighting back against the bad guys is not necessarily terrorism.
Do you support random bombings and shootings in order to frighten people into behaving the way you want them to? Or do you support defending yourself and fighting against those who would strip your freedoms from you and your loved ones? Those are two very different things and only one of them is terrorism.
I am honestly not sure I can call the killing of that CEO an act of terrorism. That man was responsible for many deaths and the suffering of untold numbers of people. For his killing to be terrorism, in my opinion, he would have to be an innocent victim. And I think I would honestly consider him an active enemy and his killing an act of self defense or at least retribution.
Would you support the execution of insurance company office workers? That would be an indisputable an act of terrorism. But punishing, up to and perhaps including killing, the leaders of companies who are actively killing innocent people for profit? That is not necessarily terrorism. I might consider it self defense but I’d have to think about it more.
So 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because people in the twin towers were responsible for many deaths?
I don’t see the point of trying to shift the goal posts. Everyone is responsible for many deaths, the question is whether you believe in the classical style of warfare where the losing side has survivors that surrender out of fear. The “anti terrorist” crowd believe that’s just inherently wrong, killing should be strategically designed to wipe out the people it could coerce. They believe nobody can use “intimidation” or “negotiation” when reason fails because it would be coercive. Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.” I just think that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing, they’re just extremely sick and insane for thinking it’s better to wipe out all “enemies,” and pretending they can avoid “terrorism” themselves, while they actually do it constantly in the process of seemingly trying to wipe out enemies.
Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.”
Ehhh…
I feel like you are generalising a lot of variance into “anti terror” crowd. There are layers to non-violence and people have different beliefs.
Also, in the Healthcare case, the target was MUCH more directly connected to the harm that is acted against, as well as in intent and severity, than the victims in 9/11. He was the target, and I don’t see anything like intent to invoke fear in the general public.
Other healthcare CEOs count as “the general public”
But you definitely have valid grounds to consider it subjective. While I mentioned it for comparison, a religious extremist targeting the janitor in the world trade center is not the same as someone justifiably targeting Brian Thompson
Only in the eyes of the fascists.
Or anyone that knows what “terrorist” means
I think it would be highly insane to call me a fascist for recognizing myself as a terrorist
Terrorism is the use of violence and fear to bring about political or social change. Fighting back against the bad guys is not necessarily terrorism.
Do you support random bombings and shootings in order to frighten people into behaving the way you want them to? Or do you support defending yourself and fighting against those who would strip your freedoms from you and your loved ones? Those are two very different things and only one of them is terrorism.
If you’re asking me to condemn whoever killed that healthcare CEO last year, the answer is [censored].
If you’re not asking me to condemn that person, you might be a terrorist like me, but not as used to thinking about that fact as I am.
I am honestly not sure I can call the killing of that CEO an act of terrorism. That man was responsible for many deaths and the suffering of untold numbers of people. For his killing to be terrorism, in my opinion, he would have to be an innocent victim. And I think I would honestly consider him an active enemy and his killing an act of self defense or at least retribution.
Would you support the execution of insurance company office workers? That would be an indisputable an act of terrorism. But punishing, up to and perhaps including killing, the leaders of companies who are actively killing innocent people for profit? That is not necessarily terrorism. I might consider it self defense but I’d have to think about it more.
So 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because people in the twin towers were responsible for many deaths?
I don’t see the point of trying to shift the goal posts. Everyone is responsible for many deaths, the question is whether you believe in the classical style of warfare where the losing side has survivors that surrender out of fear. The “anti terrorist” crowd believe that’s just inherently wrong, killing should be strategically designed to wipe out the people it could coerce. They believe nobody can use “intimidation” or “negotiation” when reason fails because it would be coercive. Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.” I just think that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing, they’re just extremely sick and insane for thinking it’s better to wipe out all “enemies,” and pretending they can avoid “terrorism” themselves, while they actually do it constantly in the process of seemingly trying to wipe out enemies.
Ehhh…
I feel like you are generalising a lot of variance into “anti terror” crowd. There are layers to non-violence and people have different beliefs.
Also, in the Healthcare case, the target was MUCH more directly connected to the harm that is acted against, as well as in intent and severity, than the victims in 9/11. He was the target, and I don’t see anything like intent to invoke fear in the general public.
Other healthcare CEOs count as “the general public”
But you definitely have valid grounds to consider it subjective. While I mentioned it for comparison, a religious extremist targeting the janitor in the world trade center is not the same as someone justifiably targeting Brian Thompson
It was meant to invoke fear in other CEOs