9 ms·
Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have mu
by exolymph 4y ago
Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.)
> "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says.
Indeed.
- anigbrowl 4y agoAlso, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are generally labeled terrorism.
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoNo, not really. Just those efforts that aim to terrorize.
- ceejayoz 4y agoNo; attacks on US service members and bases in war zones are often called terrorism. The term has absolutely become overly broad.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago[citation needed]
- ceejayoz 4y agoSure; as an example, the attack on the USS Cole. Clear military target, widely described as a terrorist attack, including by the FBI (https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing).
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago>war zones Were we at war with Yemen when this happened?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 4y agoWe weren’t at war with the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Still wasn’t a terrorist attack. We can, and should, make a significant distinction between attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets.
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoI think the main distinction is who’s doing the attacking. If it’s a state-level attack, then it’s an act of war. If it’s just a random group of dudes, it’s terrorism. It doesn’t become not terrorism just because the target is military in nature.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- andybak 4y agoIdeally yes, but we all know the word has expanded into a political battering ram, far beyond it's original meaning.
- LunaSea 4y agoNot really
- WitCanStain 4y agoHard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so.
- anigbrowl 4y agoYes, but so are an awful lot of other things. Animal rights and environmental activists have been frequently tagged with that term, even when engaged in nonviolent protest. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=dlr https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoOr 'fist bumps': https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist_fist_jab https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist_fist_jab
- r3trohack3r 4y agoThere is a difference between a news anchor saying “terrorist” and the president of the United States saying “terrorist.” When a news anchor says it, it’s a talking point. When Obama said it, a U.S. citizen was assassinated without trial. Whenever you see the executive branch use the phrase “terrorist” to describe an American citizen you should worry. When news anchors used it to describe protests it was a talking point. When Trump used it to describe protestors, that was cause for concern. When news outlets used the word to describe the Jan 6th riots, it was a talking point. When Biden used it for the Jan 6 riots, that was cause for concern. The executive branch assassinates terrorists. News anchors do not.
- mr_toad 4y ago> Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so. For a political cause, or at least a cause. Otherwise it’s just mass murder.
- rr888 4y agoWould be helpful if you had a solid example.
- llanowarelves 4y agoWhether someone is a categorized as that or a freedom-fighter largely depends what side you are on during, and who wins after (and gets to write the books). Once you win, everything you did to win gets written down as righteous and the other side vilified (they forced you to do it). It doesn't take much imagination to guess what the US founding fathers would be called if they lost, by Britain.
- hackeraccount 4y ago
- WJW 4y agoClearly Bobby was not much of a victor in this case. Related to TFA: if the Indians want their diamond back, let them come and get it. It's pretty clear why they don't, and who Tony and Bobby are in this particular version of the story.
- mberning 4y agoThey stole it fair and square. If somebody is mad about it they should steal it back.
- zardo 4y agoStealing it is just theft. To make it "legitimate" you have to claim it by conquest.
- sct202 4y agoYou also would have had to loot it before looting and pillaging became a war crime. If it's looted now and found, it usually goes back to the last owner or country of origin if it was from an archeological site.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoAccording to the article, they need to wait for a young king, kidnap his mother and use that leverage to force him to hand it over along with a 'legal' document saying they own it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]