4 ms·
There is a fundamental difference between killing people, placing bombs and gluing yourself to a road. If your definition of terrorism includes all of these, it
by fabian2k 3y ago
There is a fundamental difference between killing people, placing bombs and gluing yourself to a road. If your definition of terrorism includes all of these, it's useless.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TylerE 3y agoNot really hard to come up with situations where this actually kills people. Someone in an ambulance getting delayed in getting to the hospital, just for a start.
- DoughnutHole 3y agoTrue of infinitely many forms of protest. If the teamsters strike hospitals miss drug shipments and people die. Farming protests can lead to food supply chain disruptions. Transport strikes cause economic disruption which could theoretically lead to deaths. That’s not what terrorism is. Terrorism requires terrorising people through violence and intimidation. Not standing on a highway.
- seoulmetro 3y agoSo you're saying that silently disconnecting all power stations of a country via software is not terrorism? Is it an attack to you at all? Or is it just a protest too? Cyberterrorism is a big thing. Where is the violence or intimidation in manipulating software? Terrorism is a broad term but it is rarely used for its lower end as its also a term used as a tool to scare people. The idea that it mandates violence is outdated. Violence was the means to terrorize but it no longer is.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago> So you're saying that silently disconnecting all power stations of a country via software is not terrorism? This terrorises people. It causes mass fear and panic, and will cause pretty immediate loss of life. All people have good reason fear for the safety of them and their loved ones in the case of a catastrophic grid failure. This is not true of blocking a highway. It’s an economic disruption. The response of those opposed to the action is one of anger and frustration. Society at large does not fear for their safety because people are occasionally blocking highways, unlike in a mass terrorist campaign. Cyberterrorism as a term is applied too liberally, a direct result of governments wanting to expand their powers under the guise of combating terrorism. Software attacks that immediately threaten life and limb (eg attacks on health systems, major damage to critical infrastructure) can be argued to be cyberterrorism. Not every software attack is of that magnitude.
- lobocinza 3y agoIt's the same thing as both make life miserable. Hundreds/thousands may lose hours of their lives. Some may lose a job, a life opportunity, some may die. And all for nothing because this kind of protest is counterproductive as it associates climate change talk with narcissistic clowns.
- munk-a 3y agoThere is no enumerated right in Germany, the US or Canada to have a pleasant life and plenty of people suffer far worse than the occasional traffic inconvenience. There is in fact a war going on in Ukraine right now which is making a whole bunch of peoples' lives quite legitimately miserable and depriving many of their lives - well beyond adding twenty minutes onto a trip to costco. I think it's totally legitimate to argue over how effective an action like this is for the cause - but this is a quite reasonable form of protest.
- seoulmetro 3y agoTerrorism is an excellent form of protest. But it is very unethical.
- seoulmetro 3y agoSo you agree with me, that violence is not essential in terrorism. Blocking a highway is a form of terrorism. If people blocked a highway with violent means would you consider that a protest too? You are taking a double standard. They're all terrorism.
- yread 3y agoThere are surprisingly few ambulance rides that would result in a death if they encountered a 5 minute delay. Half the time they are empty and if they are not empty they first stabilize the patient and then bring them to hospital relatively stable. Ambulance is really more like a hospital on wheels than a fast taxi with space for a stretcher
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- munk-a 3y agoSports games kill people in this manner all the time - if a football game is letting out and causing a traffic jam we don't consider that to be manslaughter. And common sources of traffic like that provide a much higher widespread effect than protests (which can usually be routed around by emergency services - and which will often voluntarily disassemble for emergency health services).
- soerxpso 3y agoThe difference is that a sports game is generally not being organized by a group that's trying to use those consequences as an intimidation tactic to get what they want. I could say, "accidents with explosives at fireworks shows accidentally kill people sometimes," but there would still be a difference between putting on a fireworks show and bombing a mall.
- terminus 3y agoYou could come up with a scenario, sure. Bad in law though. [1] Another scenario you could come up with is a future climate catastrophe, where millions die and/or are displaced because of this global boiling era. Incidentally, which is the protest thought crime that is being prosecuted. [1] Legally there's a world of difference between proximal causes and proximate causes. (Neighborhood vs causally related.)
- turquoisevar 3y agoHow about we stop making up hypothetical situations to justify authoritarian acts by the state, violence or worse, death, and stick to the facts of the matter? If protests actually cause deaths, we can always prosecute the people causing said death as manslaughter or negligent homicide. Until then it’s just a protest, guaranteed in many countries as a civil right.
- eproxus 3y agoExhaust, noise and particles from road vehicles (even electric) also kill people.
- mylons 3y agoif your definition excludes people from blocking necessary resources for modern life you are a terrorist