Yes, but that definition also defines… basically all the most heinous things that Trump and those around him have done in the last… 5 years, lets say? … as terrorism.
Remember CPAC, 2022?
Comment on Multiple Tesla vehicles were set on fire in Las Vegas and Kansas City
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks agoTerrorism, though? Hardly.
Pretty much the definition of terrorism. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
You can make that argument but you’re not arguing that burning down a Tesla dealership isn’t terrorism, you’re just making a whataboutism.
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Yes, that is basically what I am doing.
Was that not clear?
I am attempting to point out the given definition of terrorism is quite broad, and easily interpreted subjectively depending on your biases.
Burn down a Tesla dealership?
Terrorism.
Boston Tea Party?
Terrorism.
Jan 6th?
Terrorism.
Bay of Pigs Invasion?
Terrorism, more technically ‘State Terrorism’.
Many, many acts of resistance groups in German occupied Europe during WW2?
Also Terrorism.
Order an extrajudicial assasination? Order or carry out mass arrests without proper warrants or authority?
Plant false evidence or fabricate some kind of ‘suspicious behavior’ to justify an arrest or detainment or use of force or conviction, motivated by a political/religious/ethic/etc bias?
Again, Terrorism, though more specifically that is ‘State Terrorism’.
Saying “I am going to kill [very important political figure]”?
Terrorism.
Pilot a ship on the sea to harass dragnet fishing boats or whalers?
Terrorism.
Any protest group that has ‘illegally’ gathered in an area or building without a permit, where a single person threw a punch or resisted arrest?
Again, also terrorism.
… All of these things either are or could easily be interpreted to be both violent and criminal acts, with either a motivation or desired effect being biased toward some specific group of people.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
You may note that precisely defining terrorism is actually somewhat difficult, as indicated by the wide range of different definitions used by different groups and at different times, and is actually the subject of a whole lot of academic and legal debate, with slight but very significant differences over time and place/jurisdiction.
MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Rather it is vandalism, because Terrorism, its acts cause terror in the population.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
nobody is terrified, except for billionaires, like crybaby musk.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Rather it is vandalism
I don’t understand what you wrote but the two are not mutually exclusive.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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%, your a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the person is our what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
No, what you wrote is:
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a **plain ol’ arsonist. **
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Not sure why some people are disagreeing
They don’t like the connotation. Which is fair. Nuance is complicated and if you say “yes, we’re terrorists” that’s going to be wielded against “your people” in the court of public opinion.
samus12345@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
criminal acts
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.
sharkyfox@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
This is resisting, not furthering, ideological goals.
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
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.
sharkyfox@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
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?
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
People are motivated to do this to oppose an ideology, not to promote one
How can you not see that those are the same thing?
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
fuckelon
sharkyfox@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
I’d say that’s an ethos rather than an ideology.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
lifestyle baby
Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It’s property damage that was done specifically to avoid hurting people. By that interpretation, Banksy could also be classified as a terrorist.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Man that’s some wild mental gymnastics.
Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
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.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.
kofe@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
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 we’ll 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.
Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
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.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
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?
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Every definition that I can find says it is but maybe you’d like to provide one that says otherwise.
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Its an Anarchist thing, you wouldn’t get it.
Super simple version?
Violence is defined by the state in such a way that it binds the actions of its subjects, but exempts the actions of itself/its agents.
Look up ‘systemic violence’ or ‘stochastic terrorism’ and you can begin to see how it becomes harder to draw very clear lines than you seem to think is.
Lets go with your definition that violence includes acts against property.
Ok… are… taxes violence?
Is it violent to threaten you with immediate arrest if found operating a car without a valid liscense?
Howabout valid insurance?
Is civil asset forfeiture violence?
Is emminent domain violence?
Howabout clearing a homeless encampment, destroying all their belongings?
Is that violent?
Is it violent to, either intentionally or unintentionally… crash the stock market and knock about 20% off of the value of 401ks of the majority of the population?
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
So you don’t have one? Glad we sorted that.