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?
I’ve been identifying as a terrorist for years in preparation for this. I have less than zero emotional reaction to being called a terrorist because I already call myself one.
For example, when I promote fighting back against Nazis, the goal isn’t to silently wipe out every Nazi and have them surrender because they’ve all died without any fear. I think we should deal with it more like how we dealt with the German Nazis in World War 2, where they surrendered because they were scared, not because they all suddenly died without warning and there were none left.
I willingly make statements people are scared by, sometimes those statements even involve stuff like fighting against Nazis, and it’s not accidental, I am willingly happy to recognize a goal of scaring people instead of just making them stop moving, so how am I not a terrorist? What part of the word “terrorist” isn’t fit by this? It’s like 2+2=4
On 9/11, some Jihadists did terrorism where they killed a small portion of Americans to scare others into doing what they wanted, without killing every American that didn’t willingly agree to begin with
The US tried not to be terrorists in Iraq, we were just going to wipe out everyone that didn’t take our side, we weren’t going to leave any survivors agreeing out of fear. We were just going to have people who were on our side the whole time left alive, and everyone else dead. Then we found out we couldn’t do that, so all we could really do was terrorism where we scare people into doing what we want if they didn’t agree before, like the Jihadists that attacked us
I’ve never really tried to wipe out my enemies, I’m more like the Jihadists where even if a country attacks me and refuses to listen to reason, I’m fine with having attackers survive and stop attacking out of fear instead of being dead. This is simply understanding how the term “terrorist” is used and recognizing how it applies
I’m with the old school million year old school of thought called “terrorism” upheld by examples like FDR and Winston Churchill, where if you can’t reason with violent people, you still don’t necessarily have to kill them. Killing them can be considered a last resort. I’m not with the recently-dominant idea of “absolute brute forceism” or whatever the alternative to “terrorism” is (never really heard anyone establish that or clarify it)
I’ve been identifying as a terrorist for years in preparation for this. I have less than zero emotional reaction to being called a terrorist because I already call myself one.
For example, when I promote fighting back against Nazis, the goal isn’t to silently wipe out every Nazi and have them surrender because they’ve all died without any fear. I think we should deal with it more like how we dealt with the German Nazis in World War 2, where they surrendered because they were scared, not because they all suddenly died without warning and there were none left.
I willingly make statements people are scared by, sometimes those statements even involve stuff like fighting against Nazis, and it’s not accidental, I am willingly happy to recognize a goal of scaring people instead of just making them stop moving, so how am I not a terrorist? What part of the word “terrorist” isn’t fit by this? It’s like 2+2=4
On 9/11, some Jihadists did terrorism where they killed a small portion of Americans to scare others into doing what they wanted, without killing every American that didn’t willingly agree to begin with
The US tried not to be terrorists in Iraq, we were just going to wipe out everyone that didn’t take our side, we weren’t going to leave any survivors agreeing out of fear. We were just going to have people who were on our side the whole time left alive, and everyone else dead. Then we found out we couldn’t do that, so all we could really do was terrorism where we scare people into doing what we want if they didn’t agree before, like the Jihadists that attacked us
I’ve never really tried to wipe out my enemies, I’m more like the Jihadists where even if a country attacks me and refuses to listen to reason, I’m fine with having attackers survive and stop attacking out of fear instead of being dead. This is simply understanding how the term “terrorist” is used and recognizing how it applies
I’m with the old school million year old school of thought called “terrorism” upheld by examples like FDR and Winston Churchill, where if you can’t reason with violent people, you still don’t necessarily have to kill them. Killing them can be considered a last resort. I’m not with the recently-dominant idea of “absolute brute forceism” or whatever the alternative to “terrorism” is (never really heard anyone establish that or clarify it)