4 ms·
Disagree. Men in plain clothes ambushing a student, capturing and taking her away in an unmarked car — for the crime of writing an essay — is absolutely terrori
by breadwinner 2y ago
Disagree. Men in plain clothes ambushing a student, capturing and taking her away in an unmarked car — for the crime of writing an essay — is absolutely terrorizing. And I bet the intent of the administration is to terrorize. This is worthy of the Gestapo, not USA, the land of the free.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Men in plain clothes ambushing a student, capturing and taking her away in an unmarked car — for the crime of writing an essay — is absolutely terrorizing Terrifying. Fascist. Sure. Not terrorism. Unless we’re diluting the term terrorism to the point of meaninglessness.
- colinb 2y agoI think that ship sailed so long ago it’s done a few circumnavigations already.
- breadwinner 2y agoHere's the dictionary definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Does this apply to the current case? It seems to check every box. The actions were unlawful, since the student — even immigrant students on visas — have 1st amendment rights. Was it intimidation? It certainly was. Was it against civilians? Yes. In pursuit of political aims? Yes.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoYou really have to cite the dictionary you’re citing, because terrorism is notoriously ambiguously defined. One hallmark, however, is its perpetuation by non-state actors. If ICE were using e.g. DOGE to detain people, that would come closer to terrorism. (Though the violent component is lacking.) The Gestapo weren’t terrorists, for example, again, unless even police brutality is terrorism at which point we have to conclude that every system has elements of terrorism in it, which again, dilutes the term to meaninglessness.
- breadwinner 2y agoI just typed define terrorism into Google and that's where the definition came from. Disagree that it's only terrorism if perpetuated by non-state actors. State-sponsored terrorism occurs when a government actively supports or engages in terrorist violence, either directly or through non-state actors, to achieve its political goals. (This definition is from Google as well, from its AI overview).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> definition is from Google as well, from its AI overview The Wikipedia section on the definition is probably a smarter place to start than an AI summary.
- breadwinner 2y agoThis Wikipedia article [1] seems to match this situation well. I believe the real purpose of the current administration is to establish a precedent of suppressing dissent at universities. Their method is twofold: (1) Ambush and spirit away students to intimidate the student community and establish an atmosphere of fear, and (2) make it clear to university administrations that their research funding — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — will be taken away if they don't suppress dissent. They are not just doing this to universities. They are doing this to members of congress (threat of primarying by Trump and Musk), judges (threat of impeachment), law firms (threat of canceling federal contracts and security clearances), etc. This atmosphere of fear and intimidation — of pretty much everyone — will be needed when Trump refuses to give up power at the end of his second term. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoWasn’t aware of this term, thank you. Yes, I agree that this is state terrorism. I also agree with the article’s criticism section, inasmuch as I think there is a useful delineation between illegal arrests and e.g. the government planting bombs among its opposition [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Miranda_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Miranda_bombing