Destruction of property

I recently watched a documentary called If a Tree Falls all about the history of the Earth Liberation Front, and it raised a very interesting point about 'eco-terrorism'. Basically most members of the ELF began as non-violent environmental activists who were ignored by government and treated roughly by police/other authorities (in some cases being pepper-sprayed over really trivial things). This led to a core few attempting to defeat their enemies by destroying the property, so that it would not be possible for their businesses to make a profit at the expense of the earth.

Now I'm not condoning their actions or saying they shouldn't go to prison for setting fire to biology labs and sawmills, and I don't want the thread to focus on whether you think the group is right or wrong. Instead I'd like to know whether you think this destruction of property, whilst making certain that no human is injured, qualifies as an act of terrorism, and why you think that.

If you have Netflix then the documentary is on there, but I'm not expecting anyone to watch it just for the purpose of watching this thread. I'll just point out one other example of destruction of property that could be considered terrorism - the Boston Tea Party. And I will also leave this informative review I found on IMDB:

Keep it civil please!

If it doesnt harm anyone I would view it more as criminal damage rather then terrorism. However i have a few friends who are into eco terrorism and i think it is a noble cause so i may be biased, but if you define terrorism as the act of creating fear (ie terror) amongst the public to achieve a political goal you could argue that this was terror. But then again without harming anyone I dont think we should lump them together with al qaeda and the like. More a case of definitions not fitting exactly with the reality of the situation.

Terrorism is one of those words that's so overused and misused that it's become so hard to define it's in danger of becoming meaningless outside of academic circles (it's already subject to a great deal of debate within those circles). It's almost pointless to even discuss what constitutes terrorism anymore, because the discussion often ends up being more about the semantics of the word than the acts it is supposed to be describing.

They're a bunch of scumbags obviously. Such groups have engaged in acts you can call terrorism, like firebombing homes with people and children in them. It's an attack, carried out with the intent of inflicting harm and death on innocent people, to scare them into obeying you and achieving your political goals. The intelligence service has a unit dedicated to monitoring animal rights activism and eco activism.

Still the main bunch of such groups are just regular scumbags. It's better to treat them as a criminal collective capable of acts of extreme violence, than go for an overblown classification that doesn't add much. Besides, most countries have laws that allow to tackle criminal collectives rather effectively too.


By the way OP, much like anti-globalists and OWS, it's also a group known for their lies about police violence and trying to make propaganda about it. Carefull before you paint an image that goes 'they did nothing, then came the police who were violent, and now they're terrorists'. Because such groups pretty much have always been violent extremists, and I'm yet to hear of actual excessive violence.

Ussually they'll never obey police orders, and then go dramaqueening when they're removed, while that's perfectly legit use of force.

Blablahb:
They're a bunch of scumbags obviously. Such groups have engaged in acts you can call terrorism, like firebombing homes with people and children in them. It's an attack, carried out with the intent of inflicting harm and death on innocent people, to scare them into obeying you and achieving your political goals. The intelligence service has a unit dedicated to monitoring animal rights activism and eco activism.

Still the main bunch of such groups are just regular scumbags. It's better to treat them as a criminal collective capable of acts of extreme violence, than go for an overblown classification that doesn't add much. Besides, most countries have laws that allow to tackle criminal collectives rather effectively too.


By the way OP, much like anti-globalists and OWS, it's also a group known for their lies about police violence and trying to make propaganda about it. Carefull before you paint an image that goes 'they did nothing, then came the police who were violent, and now they're terrorists'. Because such groups pretty much have always been violent extremists, and I'm yet to hear of actual excessive violence.

Ussually they'll never obey police orders, and then go dramaqueening when they're removed, while that's perfectly legit use of force.

So groups that block the water intake(for cooling) pipes of nuclear power plants are not terrorists in your book? I find it kind off odd, since if it was "politically" motivated say by a Muslim extremist group it surely would count as terrorism...

"Terrorism" is generally considered as serious crime, which is performed in order to terrorize a population, and/or destabilize a society, in order to achieve some goal.

Seriously disturbing a nation's air traffic to prevent CO2 emission would presumably be an act of "Terrorism". As for more minor vandalism, such generally doesn't rise to the term.

Though as it's obvious that they both intend and attempt to destabilize the ways of existing society through crime and public exposure thereof, they'd always be prosecuted for attempted acts of terrorism if I had my way. All such attempts are a threat to the fundamental basis of democratic debate being the only acceptable measure to bring about political change, and should be dealt with accordingly, i.e. with maximum severity.

The thing about the Boston Tea Party is, they were not in a society were through a Democratic process they could change the way things were. Eco-terrorists have that right but choose extreme methods.

They're trying to get what they want through fear tactics. They should get the maximum punishment available to people like them. In this case, the label of terrorists.

Terrorism is probably an over used word in some ways, and honestly should not be considered a specific crime itself but a quality of a crime or a criminal. On the one hand it makes sense, as the intent behind much of the vandalism is often to inspire fear for a polital or ideological goal, while on the other hand it would serve to group them together with the type of extremists for whom murder is a viable method to make a point, which honestly isn't that useful for anybody.

Verbatim:
So groups that block the water intake(for cooling) pipes of nuclear power plants are not terrorists in your book? I find it kind off odd, since if it was "politically" motivated say by a Muslim extremist group it surely would count as terrorism...

Depends, if that can cause real damage it could fall under it. Then again, there's people really stupid enough to not realise the consequences of such actions. Terrorism tends to be aware of those consequences, accepting of them, and actively striving to achieve them. If some idiots protest in a way that can cause a meltdown (while of course that can easily be prevented by operators) that's still not quite the same as quickly attacking a nuclear plant hoping to cause a meltdown and then fleeing into the night.

I think the additional charges should be reserved for actions that look like 'classical terrorism'. For instance the firebombing of houses by eco groups was met with only arson charges which rarely result in more than a few weeks in prison and normally gets a light community service sentence. Which is ridiculous and will never ever deter such violent extremists. They conspired to attack a house and kill the family inside. That's terrorism. That's premeditated murder on four people, two of them children. Then again, our spineless judges would never agree that if you firebomb someone's house, you either directly or indirectly wanted to kill those inside, so murder charges would likely fail. That's why charges regarding organised crime and terrorism should be reserved for such cases. For my country, a very large part of the violence if formed because not enough is being done against it. The radical left, in whatever form, be it squatters, anti-globalists, animal rights extremists etc, pretty much has free reign because law enforcement doesn't prioritise it and punishments are laughable.

But some countries are doing it right. Check this:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists

Right in between the few surviving Al Qaida kingpins, we find this guy:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/daniel-andreas-san-diego

He's an eco-terrorist responsible for several bombings. The additional info on him reads:
"San Diego has ties to animal rights extremist groups. He is known to follow a vegan diet, eating no meat or food containing animal products."

Continual use of a tactic that includes but not limited to harming property, spreading subversive ideas, harming individuals, compromising national security, in order to cause fear and/or gain a political leverage against a large organization (often a government and its people) to achieve a certain goal or goals.

This is terrorism. A murderer who killed one person is not a serial killer. He did not start a killing rampage to put all of the city on high alert to send a message or because he likes the thrill. The same way an arsonist who set a building in flames isn't a terrorist, but if he is a part of a larger movement who had done the same or similar tactics in order to cause fear and/or political leverage against another group over time, then he is a terrorist.

examples - A person hates his boss. He decides to blow up his office and in the process also kills three other people. He is not labeled a domestic terrorist, since the action was singular and was motivated by hate, revenge, etc.

A person hates foreigners. He and some of his friends assault a group of immigrants and beat them. He is not a terrorist. He should be charged with assault.

A person hates foreigners, and is a part of a political movement to convince the government to close the gates. They believe that if they scare the immigrants away none will come regardless of government policy. This way, he and his comrades preform many acts of assault, arson, rape, theft, kidnapping, etc. in an ongoing tactic to scare the local minority population away from the area and convince the government that this is not the place for them. This is domestic terrorism.

A person hates another country or a group of people. He is a part of a political movement to either take revenge or force the other group to make concessions for his own group. He and his comrades are engaged in doing various illegal activities against the other side including assault, murder, arson, theft, etc. that are a part of a plan to spread fear through the civilian population of the other side and force the government to give into their demands, or force the other group through fear (of further attacks) to do as they demand.

Terrorism can be hard to define when people throw the term around without understanding it.

A person blowing up an abortion clinic isn't a domestic terrorist. Had he been a part of a group or a movement, or had planned for more attacks in the future to achieve the goal of preventing women from getting safe abortions or overturning the laws, then he would have been a terrorist.

The Boston Tea party was an act of protest which included crimes against the British crown - theft and destruction of property. Was it a part of a greater movement to fight against the British crown though illegal and underhanded actions? I'm not sure. I'm inclined to say yes, which means that this act is a terrorist act.

adamsaccount:
If it doesnt harm anyone I would view it more as criminal damage rather then terrorism. However i have a few friends who are into eco terrorism and i think it is a noble cause so i may be biased, but if you define terrorism as the act of creating fear (ie terror) amongst the public to achieve a political goal you could argue that this was terror. But then again without harming anyone I dont think we should lump them together with al qaeda and the like. More a case of definitions not fitting exactly with the reality of the situation.

I disagree. The fact that you are not directly harming people in the institution you burned down doesn't mean that there isn't other harm done. In the case of the Animal Liberation Front, which is basically a paid mercenary group for PETA, they routinely threaten people or institutions with injury or death and break into research facilities, ruining or hindering possible life-saving research in the process.
Then there's tree spiking, an EarthFirst! tactic, where you put a piece of metal into a tree trunk to be felled so it ruins the chainsaw. And a chainsaw blade spinning at several hundred RPM breaking is no laughing matter. Not to mention that fire and bombs aren't exactly the most precise things to use and fire can easily get out of control and spread to another building or a bomb can detonate prematurely and shrapnels aren't nice either.

Forcing a change through intimidation and violence is easily the most despicable way to make a point in a civilized society. And please don't make a dictatorship allegory, eco-terrorism normally doesn't act in totalitarian states but democracies.

Quaxar:

adamsaccount:
If it doesnt harm anyone I would view it more as criminal damage rather then terrorism. However i have a few friends who are into eco terrorism and i think it is a noble cause so i may be biased, but if you define terrorism as the act of creating fear (ie terror) amongst the public to achieve a political goal you could argue that this was terror. But then again without harming anyone I dont think we should lump them together with al qaeda and the like. More a case of definitions not fitting exactly with the reality of the situation.

I disagree. The fact that you are not directly harming people in the institution you burned down doesn't mean that there isn't other harm done. In the case of the Animal Liberation Front, which is basically a paid mercenary group for PETA, they routinely threaten people or institutions with injury or death and break into research facilities, ruining or hindering possible life-saving research in the process.
Then there's tree spiking, an EarthFirst! tactic, where you put a piece of metal into a tree trunk to be felled so it ruins the chainsaw. And a chainsaw blade spinning at several hundred RPM breaking is no laughing matter. Not to mention that fire and bombs aren't exactly the most precise things to use and fire can easily get out of control and spread to another building or a bomb can detonate prematurely and shrapnels aren't nice either.

Forcing a change through intimidation and violence is easily the most despicable way to make a point in a civilized society. And please don't make a dictatorship allegory, eco-terrorism normally doesn't act in totalitarian states but democracies.

Dont worry i wont make a dictatorship allegory. I basically agree that forcing a political change through intimidation is terrorism. PETA dont get my respect though i agree with them in principal about stopping cruelty to animals. PETA have done some spectacularly fucked up stuff, such as exhuming the bodies of the deceased family members of animal experimentation labs and posing them having tea in the front gardens of the bosses of said labs.

No, i dont think violence and intimidation are worthwhile to make a change unless your fighting something that denies human rights in a violent way, and that denies political channels for change.

However, stuff like protest and trying to spread awareness of injustice is fine and shouldnt be called terrorism. There is obviously a line that can be crossed and you cant lump everything people fight for in as terrorism and decide that they dont have a point because of this but, no i agree with you, im a peaceful person, i dont approve of violence or intimidation, and burning the property of people you disagree with is a terrible act, though nowhere near as bad as suicide bombings, which are mainly associated with terrorism.

In summary terror and terrorism arent really adequately descriptive words, and can cover anything from nelson mandelas party to those people that freed the stingrays being used to make shoes.

adamsaccount:

Quaxar:

adamsaccount:
If it doesnt harm anyone I would view it more as criminal damage rather then terrorism. However i have a few friends who are into eco terrorism and i think it is a noble cause so i may be biased, but if you define terrorism as the act of creating fear (ie terror) amongst the public to achieve a political goal you could argue that this was terror. But then again without harming anyone I dont think we should lump them together with al qaeda and the like. More a case of definitions not fitting exactly with the reality of the situation.

I disagree. The fact that you are not directly harming people in the institution you burned down doesn't mean that there isn't other harm done. In the case of the Animal Liberation Front, which is basically a paid mercenary group for PETA, they routinely threaten people or institutions with injury or death and break into research facilities, ruining or hindering possible life-saving research in the process.
Then there's tree spiking, an EarthFirst! tactic, where you put a piece of metal into a tree trunk to be felled so it ruins the chainsaw. And a chainsaw blade spinning at several hundred RPM breaking is no laughing matter. Not to mention that fire and bombs aren't exactly the most precise things to use and fire can easily get out of control and spread to another building or a bomb can detonate prematurely and shrapnels aren't nice either.

Forcing a change through intimidation and violence is easily the most despicable way to make a point in a civilized society. And please don't make a dictatorship allegory, eco-terrorism normally doesn't act in totalitarian states but democracies.

Dont worry i wont make a dictatorship allegory. I basically agree that forcing a political change through intimidation is terrorism. PETA dont get my respect though i agree with them in principal about stopping cruelty to animals. PETA have done some spectacularly fucked up stuff, such as exhuming the bodies of the deceased family members of animal experimentation labs and posing them having tea in the front gardens of the bosses of said labs.

No, i dont think violence and intimidation are worthwhile to make a change unless your fighting something that denies human rights in a violent way, and that denies political channels for change.

However, stuff like protest and trying to spread awareness of injustice is fine and shouldnt be called terrorism. There is obviously a line that can be crossed and you cant lump everything people fight for in as terrorism and decide that they dont have a point because of this but, no i agree with you, im a peaceful person, i dont approve of violence or intimidation, and burning the property of people you disagree with is a terrible act, though nowhere near as bad as suicide bombings, which are mainly associated with terrorism.

In summary terror and terrorism arent really adequately descriptive words, and can cover anything from nelson mandelas party to those people that freed the stingrays being used to make shoes.

Oh, I didn't mean you specifically, just trying to preemptively get rid of the stupid argument of fighting for freedom or such.

The post above my original one sums it up pretty neatly I think. Protesting doesn't equal terrorism but if that's how it is still perceived then the ones responsible for that are the proper terror groups that make the whole movement look bad. I wouldn't be surprised if people thought less of animal rights movements with groups like PETA and their utter stupidity so prevalent in the news.

But I'm interested, those friends of yours that are "into eco-terrorism"... are we talking active or passive?

I cant really go into much detail because i dont want to put them at risk, but basically active enough to get noticed, but not enough to hurt anyone

Blablahb:
Depends, if that can cause real damage it could fall under it. Then again, there's people really stupid enough to not realise the consequences of such actions. Terrorism tends to be aware of those consequences, accepting of them, and actively striving to achieve them. If some idiots protest in a way that can cause a meltdown (while of course that can easily be prevented by operators) that's still not quite the same as quickly attacking a nuclear plant hoping to cause a meltdown and then fleeing into the night.

Such an act would be incredibly dangerous, and goes far beyond simply destroying buildings. I fail to see how anyone blocking cooling water pipes to a nuclear reactor could not be aware of the consequences. You're basically going to send the reactor into a meltdown.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-energy-primer

edit: An operator may not be able to stop it if the cooling water pipes are blocked. Even if you stop the fission process with the control rods, if you can't cool those rods off, they are going to melt. I'm an operator at a fossil plant, though my company has a nuclear division as well, so I've gotten to learn a little bit about it.

So ELF has a set command structure(i assume), it has a goal, that goal is not to make money but to accomplish a moral goal they have, to achieve that goal they break the law, a consequence of these actions is people feeling afraid or angry by the act.

They'd be organized crime if their goal was to make money. They'd be an activist organization if they didn't break the law. They'd be a charitable organization if instead of destroying property they did things to actively help the environment. They are all labels and I think the group does qualify as terrorists, it's mainly a term used by the law. The law uses the label to further weaken and go after terrorists groups. You can ask yourself if these guys deserve extra jail time that comes with the word terrorist but I'm pretty sure they qualify for the definition by law.

To my mind, terrorism is when you use violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line.

If you're burning down buildings with nobody in them to stop those buildings being used, rather than to frighten people, IMHO, you aren't a terrorist.

They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

I agree to some extent but to most people terrorists are pretty much the same thing as bombers, willing to kill people for their cause. This isnt the same thing as "anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom" as you can be a political candidate and not fit the description of terrorist so long as your not willing to kill people over it, however extreme your views.

However, yes it is often just a word used to describe the "enemy" in the modern age

adamsaccount:

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

I agree to some extent but to most people terrorists are pretty much the same thing as bombers, willing to kill people for their cause. This isnt the same thing as "anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom" as you can be a political candidate and not fit the description of terrorist so long as your not willing to kill people over it, however extreme your views.

However, yes it is often just a word used to describe the "enemy" in the modern age

Politics is a vile game of lies and money. Don't trust anything that happens there.

SimpleThunda':

adamsaccount:

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

I agree to some extent but to most people terrorists are pretty much the same thing as bombers, willing to kill people for their cause. This isnt the same thing as "anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom" as you can be a political candidate and not fit the description of terrorist so long as your not willing to kill people over it, however extreme your views.

However, yes it is often just a word used to describe the "enemy" in the modern age

Politics is a vile game of lies and money. Don't trust anything that happens there.

Dont worry i dont, Im glad to find someone more cynical than me. Having said that I think basically if you want to change something in society then politics (got more faith in the courts than the legislature) is your only option without getting violent. Im all for living a self sustainable life away from politicians though.

"Terrorism" is striking terror into people's hearts for a political cause. I don't see why hurting people is required to do this. If you do the right kind of damage and leave the right kind of threats, you can stir up terror without spilling a drop of blood.

Lilani:
"Terrorism" is striking terror into people's hearts for a political cause. I don't see why hurting people is required to do this. If you do the right kind of damage and leave the right kind of threats, you can stir up terror without spilling a drop of blood.

what if you use that definition and then look at the news networks drift towards "sensationalism" in pursuit of profit...

then you look at the likes of crime being at some of the lowest levels its ever been and yet "fear of crime" runs at all time highs...

the same goes for war. we live in the most peaceful period in human history but every day i see comment from people which suggest that the world is a pressure-cooker just about to blow...

imo the institution of (low level not continually consciously pressing) "terror" or "fears" is one of the primary tools of political "debate" and media "sensationalism" in the pursuit of profit.

i'm not saying your definition is wrong. in any real conflict people "fear" "the enemy" and live "in terror" of them. but imo the "tool" of "fear" is wielded far more widely and freely than people are want to admit and that is why is probably why it's become so widely used.

nowadays its got to the point it seems most people will openly take the piss out those are "aspirational" and don't hold a "grimdark" view of the world whether they be individuals OR politicians.

perhaps that's why we're not having our own "springs"...because gawd knows we have reason enough in some quarters.

imho the real problematic "terror" at work in society today is the constantly leveraged "fear" of people losing what they have in some way.

"Terrorism" is just a tiny (and tbth quite lame) part of that greater whole.

Committing crimes to spread terror and influence people's actions/political policy.

In the strictest sense, and by most definitions of terrorism I have seen, what the ELF is doing certainly qualifies. Now, I don't think we should declare war on these people, just arrest them and charge them with the crimes they committed.

Now, I think what they are doing isn't helping their cause in the slightest. Most businesses they attack surely have insurance that covers bombing, and having a person or organization declare that "WE HAVE STOPPED THE ANIMAL ABUSE BY FREEING THE TEST ANIMALS AND BURNING IT TO THE GROUND" also kind of makes it hard for the insurance company to back out from giving the business the money. Then, more trees are going to be cut down to repair the damage, more animals are going to be found, and the business is going to be right back doing what ever horrible deed you protested in the first place. Also, because of your actions, people are going to label the entire animal right and enviromentalist movement as a bunch of crazy nut jobs who are willing to resort to violence to get their way. Good job.

*Sarcastic clap*

thaluikhain:
To my mind, terrorism is when you use violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line.

If you're burning down buildings with nobody in them to stop those buildings being used, rather than to frighten people, IMHO, you aren't a terrorist.

I'm surprised at you with this reply. You think that the fact that nobody's in the building at the time doesn't frighten people? How would you feel if it were your place of work that was destroyed? You show up after the bombing and think "that corner right over there, there was my desk... what if I'd been here after hours? What if they didn't know someone was here?" Would you want to go back to work there? What if you're let go because the rebuilding costs are so high the business can't keep everyone employed? (And one target is SUV dealerships, which are generally franchised small businesses, so that's highly possible.) Now you've perhaps lost your health care coverage, and you can't feed your kids. That doesn't cause terror? At the SUV dealership across the road, for the employees looking at the destroyed one and thinking "am I next? is my office next?", they're not frightened?

Sounds like violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line to me.

Lilani:
"Terrorism" is striking terror into people's hearts for a political cause. I don't see why hurting people is required to do this. If you do the right kind of damage and leave the right kind of threats, you can stir up terror without spilling a drop of blood.

Yup, that's it. Full agreement. The goal of terrorism is to frighten, to terrify, to coerce the people into giving up their liberty out of fear.

Killing people is just one of several means toward that end.

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

What the hell am I reading?

So you're saying all the groups the gouvernment calls terrorist organisations are actually those that are right but the gouvernment doesn't want to acknowledge as such? It's nice of you to absolve the IRA for decades of bombings and heaps of injured and dead people like that. And you're saying the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 that killed 52 and injured 700 were right too? 9/11? The Munich massacre? Rome and Vienna Airport attacks? The Jihad movement?

If you think no one is a terrorist you do not understand what the word terrorist means, please read this post, then think about what you said.

Quaxar:
What the hell am I reading?

Libertarian dogma with a sauce of sovereign citizen rubbish, I'd say.

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

Everything, including hard figures and known evidence can be perverse into propaganda. Rarely do you see the media you consume portray a situation fairly in a balanced manner. Even when you read from your favorite news source it is laced with propaganda and prejudices of the writers and editors.

Terrorists can support a government as well. You can call it a secret police, or any other kind of government sanctioned oppression, but it is terrorism in its core. The difference between the two being that the mechanisms behind this type of terrorism are generally much more advanced and efficient than the ordinary opposition kind.

Terrorism as a movement generally strives for political and/or diplomatic change. Other movements and organizations can use the same tactics but towards other means - like towards money or influence are not branded as terrorists, but as organized crime syndicates or Shadowy Cabals (respectively).

Your view is dripping with vile and is heavily influenced by propaganda. Terrorists, whether justified or not, whether freedom fighters or not, drive towards their goal with the threat of violence and violence. They terrorize the government - and the people, and are thus illegitimate from their core. Even when I look at resistance movements from my country against German and Soviet occupation I can tell you that they were simply terrorists. When they lost, they were branded as criminals and when they won they became the beacons of the revolution. However they are still terrorists and this memory will stain their name, no matter how many people will justify the people they killed or railroads they blew up. No, killing a Quisling is not the same as killing a Nazi, you just murdered your countryman. They won't stand trial, obviously, but it must not be forgotten or perverse into something patriotic. I do not worship murderers.

Glasgow:

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

Everything, including hard figures and known evidence can be perverse into propaganda. Rarely do you see the media you consume portray a situation fairly in a balanced manner. Even when you read from your favorite news source it is laced with propaganda and prejudices of the writers and editors.

Terrorists can support a government as well. You can call it a secret police, or any other kind of government sanctioned oppression, but it is terrorism in its core. The difference between the two being that the mechanisms behind this type of terrorism are generally much more advanced and efficient than the ordinary opposition kind.

Terrorism as a movement generally strives for political and/or diplomatic change. Other movements and organizations can use the same tactics but towards other means - like towards money or influence are not branded as terrorists, but as organized crime syndicates or Shadowy Cabals (respectively).

Your view is dripping with vile and is heavily influenced by propaganda. Terrorists, whether justified or not, whether freedom fighters or not, drive towards their goal with the threat of violence and violence. They terrorize the government - and the people, and are thus illegitimate from their core. Even when I look at resistance movements from my country against German and Soviet occupation I can tell you that they were simply terrorists. When they lost, they were branded as criminals and when they won they became the beacons of the revolution. However they are still terrorists and this memory will stain their name, no matter how many people will justify the people they killed or railroads they blew up. No, killing a Quisling is not the same as killing a Nazi, you just murdered your countryman. They won't stand trial, obviously, but it must not be forgotten or perverse into something patriotic. I do not worship murderers.

You said it. Freedom fighters. Most fight against oppression or against the injustice they feel has been dealt upon them. Diplomatic solutions have often been sought, but the oppressor did not want to do away with their power, thus they brand them as terrorists when they rebel.

SimpleThunda':

Glasgow:

SimpleThunda':
They're right.

The government knows it.

Thus, they're called terrorists.

Ofcourse they're not terrorists. No one is a terrorist.

Terrorist is a name the governments came up with to label anyone who threatens their reign over the kingdom, to make sure that they do not get any support.
It's the most telling example of propaganda.

Everything, including hard figures and known evidence can be perverse into propaganda. Rarely do you see the media you consume portray a situation fairly in a balanced manner. Even when you read from your favorite news source it is laced with propaganda and prejudices of the writers and editors.

Terrorists can support a government as well. You can call it a secret police, or any other kind of government sanctioned oppression, but it is terrorism in its core. The difference between the two being that the mechanisms behind this type of terrorism are generally much more advanced and efficient than the ordinary opposition kind.

Terrorism as a movement generally strives for political and/or diplomatic change. Other movements and organizations can use the same tactics but towards other means - like towards money or influence are not branded as terrorists, but as organized crime syndicates or Shadowy Cabals (respectively).

Your view is dripping with vile and is heavily influenced by propaganda. Terrorists, whether justified or not, whether freedom fighters or not, drive towards their goal with the threat of violence and violence. They terrorize the government - and the people, and are thus illegitimate from their core. Even when I look at resistance movements from my country against German and Soviet occupation I can tell you that they were simply terrorists. When they lost, they were branded as criminals and when they won they became the beacons of the revolution. However they are still terrorists and this memory will stain their name, no matter how many people will justify the people they killed or railroads they blew up. No, killing a Quisling is not the same as killing a Nazi, you just murdered your countryman. They won't stand trial, obviously, but it must not be forgotten or perverse into something patriotic. I do not worship murderers.

You said it. Freedom fighters. Most fight against oppression or against the injustice they feel has been dealt upon them. Diplomatic solutions have often been sought, but the oppressor did not want to do away with their power, thus they brand them as terrorists when they rebel.

"Freedom Fighter" is a bad phrase and should be expunged from the dictionary. They all should be branded as terrorists as long as they fit the profile, no matter their moral legitimacy.

I said no such thing. Freedom Fighters can fight against an oppression made on them as a group, but they can also fight for their freedom and their values. Humans rights is not a universal value. Democracy is not a universal value. I called them all terrorists.

You can just as much have people fight for a Monarchy headed by their beloved heir to the thrown, tossed aside by a democratic popular uprising. Should they be called freedom fighters, or terrorists? They fight for their values and their freedom to uphold them. The term "freedom", as you see it is perverse. It does not signify the way these groups work or their goals, as sometimes "freedom" is freedom from the current regime, and not anything that would denote "freedom" as seen by *shudders* modern liberals.

Glasgow:

SimpleThunda':

Glasgow:

Everything, including hard figures and known evidence can be perverse into propaganda. Rarely do you see the media you consume portray a situation fairly in a balanced manner. Even when you read from your favorite news source it is laced with propaganda and prejudices of the writers and editors.

Terrorists can support a government as well. You can call it a secret police, or any other kind of government sanctioned oppression, but it is terrorism in its core. The difference between the two being that the mechanisms behind this type of terrorism are generally much more advanced and efficient than the ordinary opposition kind.

Terrorism as a movement generally strives for political and/or diplomatic change. Other movements and organizations can use the same tactics but towards other means - like towards money or influence are not branded as terrorists, but as organized crime syndicates or Shadowy Cabals (respectively).

Your view is dripping with vile and is heavily influenced by propaganda. Terrorists, whether justified or not, whether freedom fighters or not, drive towards their goal with the threat of violence and violence. They terrorize the government - and the people, and are thus illegitimate from their core. Even when I look at resistance movements from my country against German and Soviet occupation I can tell you that they were simply terrorists. When they lost, they were branded as criminals and when they won they became the beacons of the revolution. However they are still terrorists and this memory will stain their name, no matter how many people will justify the people they killed or railroads they blew up. No, killing a Quisling is not the same as killing a Nazi, you just murdered your countryman. They won't stand trial, obviously, but it must not be forgotten or perverse into something patriotic. I do not worship murderers.

You said it. Freedom fighters. Most fight against oppression or against the injustice they feel has been dealt upon them. Diplomatic solutions have often been sought, but the oppressor did not want to do away with their power, thus they brand them as terrorists when they rebel.

"Freedom Fighter" is a bad phrase and should be expunged from the dictionary. They all should be branded as terrorists as long as they fit the profile, no matter their moral legitimacy.

I said no such thing. Freedom Fighters can fight against an oppression made on them as a group, but they can also fight for their freedom and their values. Humans rights is not a universal value. Democracy is not a universal value. I called them all terrorists.

You can just as much have people fight for a Monarchy headed by their beloved heir to the thrown, tossed aside by a democratic popular uprising. Should they be called freedom fighters, or terrorists? They fight for their values and their freedom to uphold them. The term "freedom", as you see it is perverse. It does not signify the way these groups work or their goals, as sometimes "freedom" is freedom from the current regime, and not anything that would denote "freedom" as seen by *shudders* modern liberals.

I'm not going to bicker over the meaning of words. I think I've made my point, but quite honestly, I find it hard to even find yours.

SimpleThunda':

Glasgow:

SimpleThunda':

You said it. Freedom fighters. Most fight against oppression or against the injustice they feel has been dealt upon them. Diplomatic solutions have often been sought, but the oppressor did not want to do away with their power, thus they brand them as terrorists when they rebel.

"Freedom Fighter" is a bad phrase and should be expunged from the dictionary. They all should be branded as terrorists as long as they fit the profile, no matter their moral legitimacy.

I said no such thing. Freedom Fighters can fight against an oppression made on them as a group, but they can also fight for their freedom and their values. Humans rights is not a universal value. Democracy is not a universal value. I called them all terrorists.

You can just as much have people fight for a Monarchy headed by their beloved heir to the thrown, tossed aside by a democratic popular uprising. Should they be called freedom fighters, or terrorists? They fight for their values and their freedom to uphold them. The term "freedom", as you see it is perverse. It does not signify the way these groups work or their goals, as sometimes "freedom" is freedom from the current regime, and not anything that would denote "freedom" as seen by *shudders* modern liberals.

I'm not going to bicker over the meaning of words. I think I've made my point, but quite honestly, I find it hard to even find yours.

You haven't made your point. You said that terrorism is a label used by governments to label rebel and resistance groups just because they oppose them. I said that you were wrong, and that terrorism was clear and define.

Terrorism isn't a label used to demonize or de-legitimize a group or movement, their actions already do that if they truly are terrorists. These groups get their support from their established base, whoever they are. Branding an organization a terrorist one isn't propaganda, it's a way to categorize such a movement or organization that uses underhanded tactics to gains its way.

Your idea and definition is wrong and in of itself is rooted in recent reincarnated anti-imperialist propaganda.

Polarity27:

thaluikhain:
To my mind, terrorism is when you use violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line.

If you're burning down buildings with nobody in them to stop those buildings being used, rather than to frighten people, IMHO, you aren't a terrorist.

I'm surprised at you with this reply. You think that the fact that nobody's in the building at the time doesn't frighten people? How would you feel if it were your place of work that was destroyed? You show up after the bombing and think "that corner right over there, there was my desk... what if I'd been here after hours? What if they didn't know someone was here?" Would you want to go back to work there? What if you're let go because the rebuilding costs are so high the business can't keep everyone employed? (And one target is SUV dealerships, which are generally franchised small businesses, so that's highly possible.) Now you've perhaps lost your health care coverage, and you can't feed your kids. That doesn't cause terror? At the SUV dealership across the road, for the employees looking at the destroyed one and thinking "am I next? is my office next?", they're not frightened?

Sounds like violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line to me.

Where did I say it wouldn't cause fear? I meant that if the intent was to simply destroy the buildings, and fear was a byproduct (desirable or not), they aren't terrorists, IMHO.

thaluikhain:

Polarity27:

thaluikhain:
To my mind, terrorism is when you use violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line.

If you're burning down buildings with nobody in them to stop those buildings being used, rather than to frighten people, IMHO, you aren't a terrorist.

I'm surprised at you with this reply. You think that the fact that nobody's in the building at the time doesn't frighten people? How would you feel if it were your place of work that was destroyed? You show up after the bombing and think "that corner right over there, there was my desk... what if I'd been here after hours? What if they didn't know someone was here?" Would you want to go back to work there? What if you're let go because the rebuilding costs are so high the business can't keep everyone employed? (And one target is SUV dealerships, which are generally franchised small businesses, so that's highly possible.) Now you've perhaps lost your health care coverage, and you can't feed your kids. That doesn't cause terror? At the SUV dealership across the road, for the employees looking at the destroyed one and thinking "am I next? is my office next?", they're not frightened?

Sounds like violent acts against innocent people to frighten others into toeing the line to me.

Where did I say it wouldn't cause fear? I meant that if the intent was to simply destroy the buildings, and fear was a byproduct (desirable or not), they aren't terrorists, IMHO.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood you. I don't think the intent *is* to simply destroy the buildings, I think the intent is to cause damage with the very specific goal of getting people to stop doing things the group doesn't like. So I don't believe the terror is incidental, I think it's quite intentionally part of what they're doing. I wouldn't doubt that some of these group's members are naive enough to think it's as simple as destroying empty buildings, so therefore nobody gets hurt, or able to delude themselves that destroying empty buildings does no harm. But I don't think the leaders have any such illusions.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked