State-backed terrorism

[BigBallinStalin]

Taxation entails terrorism: striking fear through coercion into civilians' minds if they do not obey.

lol, so the police are terrorists for punishing law-breakers?

That's like saying your boss is a terrorist because he fired you for violating company disciplinary policy.

The boss-employee analogy is crappy because the employee signs a contract. Relations between civilians and state do not involve such a contract.

Anyway, I'm just sayin' that it's arbitrary. E.g. law-breakers = people who protest. Country A uses its police--and perhaps its military--to forcibly stop the protestors, who are 'innocent' civilians (e.g. those who protested against Qaddafi's regime). Yes, in this context, police can be defined as terrorists because they are punishing law-breakers.

Another example, Iraq can use its police to forcibly discourage news agencies from being too critical about the government. They could even pass a law saying, "don't be so critical," thus the police are punishing law-breakers, when in fact they're using violence against innocent civilians in order to attain some political goal (again, that's called "terrorism").

Note how "law," "innocent," and "civilian" can change under different circumstances (and how observers will flip these definitions around to label a disliked group as "terrorists"). This is way most ignore state-sponsored terrorism and instead (arbitrarily) limit terrorist to substate/nonstate organizations. This makes them feel better about government's using violence against their own citizens.

When it comes to taxation, you voluntarily participate in your society and do so well aware that participation comes with a membership fee (taxes). If you have a problem with being a part of American society and paying the accompanying taxes then you could always move to another country, or find somewhere where you can live outside of societal institutions (disappear into a nature reserve and live a life of subsistence, go live on the streets etc.). If you decide that you'd rather be a part of American society than do this then you have made your choice.

The rest I agree with.

Yeah, we've been through this. Acquiescence != agreement. Voluntary != involuntary. You need to hit your dictionary--hit it hard, mr. sow drink

[BigBallinStalin]

Throw your hands up in the air if you support terrorism:

I knew it. And look at that guy in the top right; he supports terrorism twice. I'm pretty sure he doesn't get two votes, but it is China.

[Metsfanmax]

General protip: it is more productive to debate actions than words. Instead of arguing that Palestinian suicide bombing or Israeli missile strikes are acts of terrorism, let's instead argue whether they are legitimate or just.

[BigBallinStalin]

General protip: it is more productive to debate actions than words. Instead of arguing that Palestinian suicide bombing or Israeli missile strikes are acts of terrorism, let's instead argue whether they are legitimate or just.

That sounds ideal, but that kind of debate is heavily steeped in emotions (nationalism, us v. them, and so on).

[nietzsche]

General protip: it is more productive to debate actions than words. Instead of arguing that Palestinian suicide bombing or Israeli missile strikes are acts of terrorism, let's instead argue whether they are legitimate or just.

I disagree. Terrorism being a concept with a negative connotation, determining if it's actually terrorism should be useful. The problem lies in the definition of the concept.

Terrorism, the concept, is being used by groups of power to incite people to accept their actions. It's ridicule how the US goverment use it to justify their actions that very well fit in the same concept.

Terrorism is IMO a stupid concept. We should stop using it altogether in these discussions. Further use of the concept by us validate its use by nations and groups of power. By using it we fall in their game.

Arguing with their terms is playing their tricky game, in which they have had the upper hand for quite some time.

So useful discussion would be to see the actions and the reasons behind them, and determine what's fair or not basing ourselves in human principles.

Otherwise it's just mental masturbation behind the real lines of "I'm the powerful so just suck it up, i'm just using pretty words to justify my actions so that you can keep on stupidly regurgitating what i say"

[DoomYoshi]

Throw your hands up in the air if you support terrorism:

I knew it. And look at that guy in the top right; he supports terrorism twice. I'm pretty sure he doesn't get two votes, but it is China.

Nope, Japan. China's parliament house was designed by a James Bond villain:

[BigBallinStalin]

Throw your hands up in the air if you support terrorism:

I knew it. And look at that guy in the top right; he supports terrorism twice. I'm pretty sure he doesn't get two votes, but it is China.

Nope, Japan. China's parliament house was designed by a James Bond villain:

Wait, which one's Chinese?

[GoranZ]

Throw your hands up in the air if you support terrorism:

I knew it. And look at that guy in the top right; he supports terrorism twice. I'm pretty sure he doesn't get two votes, but it is China.

Nope, Japan. China's parliament house was designed by a James Bond villain:

Wait, which one's Chinese?

The one with red star

[mrswdk]

BBS is terrorizing the Chinese people in this thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS is terrorizing the Chinese people in this thread.

Nah, it's not terrorism because it's legitimate.

[shickingbrits]

General protip: it is more productive to debate actions than words. Instead of arguing that Palestinian suicide bombing or Israeli missile strikes are acts of terrorism, let's instead argue whether they are legitimate or just.

I disagree. Terrorism being a concept with a negative connotation, determining if it's actually terrorism should be useful. The problem lies in the definition of the concept.

Terrorism, the concept, is being used by groups of power to incite people to accept their actions. It's ridicule how the US goverment use it to justify their actions that very well fit in the same concept.

Terrorism is IMO a stupid concept. We should stop using it altogether in these discussions. Further use of the concept by us validate its use by nations and groups of power. By using it we fall in their game.

Arguing with their terms is playing their tricky game, in which they have had the upper hand for quite some time.

So useful discussion would be to see the actions and the reasons behind them, and determine what's fair or not basing ourselves in human principles.

Otherwise it's just mental masturbation behind the real lines of "I'm the powerful so just suck it up, i'm just using pretty words to justify my actions so that you can keep on stupidly regurgitating what i say"

So let's say there is an influential person causing social unrest. This person is a threat to the nation, not to democracy, because if the changes he's advocating aren't popular, then he won't get a following. To kill him overtly would be to make a martyr, to enliven the cause you are trying to put to rest. Would a manchurian candidate be a fair way for the nation to go about protecting itself or would it be an act of terrorism?

Since the state conducts enforcement of laws, how should the population respond when a influential person causing social unrest is killed by what might be a manchurian candidate or even a straight up government agent?

[notyou2]

could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?

It could be misinterpreted as such. Some force provides order, some provides chaos. I choose to identify terrorism as that use of force which adds chaos.

Chaos is evil

But what if im CHAOTIC GOOD........

That makes you a Dungeons and Dragons playing heathen demon.

[rishaed]

could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?

It could be misinterpreted as such. Some force provides order, some provides chaos. I choose to identify terrorism as that use of force which adds chaos.

Chaos is evil

But what if im CHAOTIC GOOD........

That makes you a Dungeons and Dragons playing heathen demon.

Im just Robin Hood..... And his band of Merry Men. Don't Judge Me.

[mrswdk]

The closest thing to a consensus on how to define terrorism is 'Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public' (ripped from Wiki).

Let's assume that governments have equally little legitimacy as nutters who live in their parents' basement, foreign terror groups etc. (lol) and delete the word 'criminal', so as to enable a more even-handed assessment:

'acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public'

So there were go. If it is intended to terrify the general public, it is terrorism. Is arresting people intended to instill terror in the general public? Are laws intended to be terrifying? I don't see many terrified people in my office.

[Metsfanmax]

Is everyday law enforcement really intended to provoke a state of terror in the general public?

In the US, the answer to that may depend on the color of your skin.

[mrswdk]

Are you suggesting that the American government specifically attempts to terrify minority citizens?

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not saying it attempts to, I am saying that it does.

[mrswdk]

And if I drive my car 100kmh while drunk off my head it would probably terrify all of my passengers, but that doesn't make me a terrorist.

As per the definition I just posted, the key is intent. Do you think law enforcement intends to keep America's minority communities in a state of terror, or is the fear felt by some non-white Americans simply a result of a few psycho cops who didn't know how to conduct themselves properly and made the news as a result?

[Metsfanmax]

And if I drive my car 100kmh while drunk off my head it would probably terrify all of my passengers, but that doesn't make me a terrorist.

As per the definition I just posted, the key is intent.

Intent can come in many guises. If you're a black person, you're much more likely to be killed while unarmed by a police officer than by a white person. This has been well known for a very long time, yet nothing has changed in the system. We can assume that killing someone who is not armed is generally not something we want the police to be doing, So if police agencies do not take corrective action to lower the number of unarmed minorities who are killed, it is fair to say that there is an intent to cause fear in those minorities. The intent may not be explicit, but there's clearly intent not to fix a law enforcement system that is broken in this respect, which knowingly causes fear among black people. Since actual people are dying at the hands of police officers every week, this isn't one of those situations where we can just say that inaction is not a moral choice.

[mrswdk]

I dunno what kind of logic that is. Pakistani people are more likely to be murdered by drones during their wedding ceremony than American people. Does that mean the American government is deliberately targeting Pakistani wedding ceremonies for drone strikes?

'sides, how do you know the American police aren't doing anything at all to deal with the statistic you just mentioned? The fact that officers seem to be pretty consistently punished for erroneous shootings would suggest that the American police do not tolerate such behavior, and in fact actively oppose it.

[Metsfanmax]

The police display a degree of incompetence = the police are deliberately terrorizing ethnic minorities?

M'kay.

Pay attention here. We're not talking about the number of "incompetent" actions. We're talking about how those "incompetent" actions occur disproportionately to people with dark skin color. Relative to the percentage of Americans who are black, the percentage of unarmed people killed by the police who are black is very much higher. What would you call an unbroken chain of incompetent actions primarily directed towards people of a certain minority group over a period of decades? A series of unfortunate events?

[mrswdk]

You are talking as if the only possible explanation for the over-representation of one particular ethnicity in crime stats is that said ethnicity has been deliberately targeted and victimized. I see no reason to make this assumption.

Anyway I just edited that last post so see what you think of the new version.

[mrswdk]

Black people are disproportionately poor. Government exploitation!

HIV is disproportionately prevalent among black people. The CIA created it!

Crack cocaine is disproportionately used by black people. The government is selling it to them!

I lost my tin foil hat. A blacks ops team has stolen it!

[Metsfanmax]

You are talking as if the only possible explanation for the over-representation of one particular ethnicity in crime stats is that said ethnicity has been deliberately targeted and victimized.

No I didn't. I obviously understand the existence of confounding effects, and your condescending tone here is bullshit. The whole point was that the intent didn't have to be explicit. If it is happening and it is the fault of the police, then it is the job of the police to fix it. There is generally only one target in the shooting of an unarmed person. (This is why your analogy to drone strikes in Pakistan fails.) So, if we state that it is not the fault of the police that this happens, then the only alternative is that it is the fault of black people that they get shot while unarmed much more than white people. Is that the argument you are making? Saying that there might be confounders isn't very helpful if there aren't any obvious ones to look for. And even if there are, they probably miss the point, because many of the possible confounders were caused by this racism in the first place.

[Metsfanmax]

Black people are disproportionately poor. Government exploitation!

Wait, are you suggesting that the reason black people in the US are disproportionately poor has nothing to do with a particular government-sanctioned system of exploitation of black people? It's got nothing to do with that bit about using black people for forced manual labor for a couple hundred years?