3 ms·
> French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists. How do you feel calling someone striking a terrorist?
by chinathrow 10y ago
> French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists.
How do you feel calling someone striking a terrorist?
- yummyfajitas 10y agoWhy are my feelings relevant? If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.
- chinathrow 10y agoI assume you're from the U.S. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f "(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" Rough words for a few Uber drives in France.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI know it's confusing when white people are called "terrorist", but the definition clearly fits. If it helps you to understand, think about the Pune/Bombay examples I linked to above (where the perpetrators and victims are all brown).
- rocqua 10y agoI believe the strikers, not the uber taxi drivers, are the ones that are called 'terrorists' here.
- marcosdumay 10y agoAny army that ever participated in a war fit this. I think there some "terror" missing from this definition. Anyway, it is a word that should just not be used today. There is no context where it clarifies anything anymore. The GP is correct in distrusting people that use it, and I add that some loss of trust should be automatic.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoYes, I left out the requirement of being a non-state actor in my comment. I don't think my comment was misleading at all. My use of the word "terrorist" fit both my definition and chinathrow's. Since you seem to think I'm being misleading, what do you think I'm misleading people about?
- madgar 10y agoI bet they feel pretty good. It's the internet, after all. Isn't the whole point for a lot of people that there's no consequences for their words?
- zo1 10y agoNot sure about what the OP is referring to, but striking may very well be seen as "terrorist" behavior if it turns violent. I.e. They're trying to "intimidate" and "scare" using violence against innocent people.
- tyleraland 10y agoI worry about the consequences of labeling a large group of assembled people as "terrorists" based on the (real or perceived) actions or rhetoric of a few. E.g., if a large group of angry protesters is staring down a national guard and shots are fired on the crowd, officials need only claim that the crowd fired first and thus the slaughter of "terrorists" might be justified.