4 ms·

I think by definition any group supporting an armed political uprising in a stable country is considered a terrorist group. Should we consider armed groups in A

I think by definition any group supporting an armed political uprising in a stable country is considered a terrorist group. Should we consider armed groups in America or Belgium to not be terrorists? And considering the Syrian civil war ended with a guy from Al Qaeda (famous terrorist group) becoming president and the country now having massacres under his watch, yeah, I think it's correct for groups that support armed uprising to be considered terrorist groups. Because they are. That armed uprising in Syria led to hundreds of thousands being killed, millions displaced, for what? A guy no better than the predecessor took his place, and he ruined countless lives to get there.

mothballed 9mo ago
OK so anyone fighting a stable tyrant country for political ends is a terrorist in your estimation. I think by some definition of "terrorist" you are correct. But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations. And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might. And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).
- kdheiwns 9mo ago
  The US also props up tyrants in South and Central America. Those people have killed countless and I would consider support of those groups acts of terrorism as well. The Uyghur and Chechen groups want to oppose strict Islamic law, and if you want to support those groups, you're free to go off to Afghanistan or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them. As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign. And I don't think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses.
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    I'm glad we can agree the US did not list them as terrorists for the kind of red herring reasons you listed under your own value system, then. Your own opinion of terrorism has nothing to do with why the US pretends to be against China but then declares as terrorists people with the credible power to fight back, even if everything you say is true. > or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them. This is hilarious to hear you lecture me about, considering I've been shot at by ISIS, and been to both Iraq and Syria, so please lecture me more with your experience what it's like to be in these regions. Yes I am free to go to areas that have been in conflict with ISIS, and I have. Of course, hilariously, you fail to note the Uyghurs were opponents of ISIS in Afghanistan, another words, working to eliminate ISIS. So even if one engaged in your little dare about going to Afghanistan, they'd find it your little tale earlier was false. The Uyghurs are not bringing ISIS to China, why would they fly their enemies flag? >As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign. The KRG did (Kurdish Iraq), because ISIS was defeated much more easily. Same with many other factions in Iraq that defeated ISIS. ISIS was just part of the power vacuum that emerged after Saddam, but eliminating Saddam was the first step in breaking up the pieces, ISIS was a natural next adversary but a divided piece. You can't expect to overthrow a tyrant and not end up with fragmented other tyrants to also have to deal with. You keep trying to dominate the discussion with all the bad things various groups have done while acknowledging the US doesn't give a single shit about it, proving it's a total side show to our discussion. It's not clear why you keep re-iterating it other than it gives you a sense of moral superiority over the US government and value signal your position, which we all know you probably genuinely have. >think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses. I'm pretty sure the PKK blew up a bus at one point... so we're not allowed to support Kurds who want independence? The Turks take your same approach. Your argument here is patently absurd. Of course no one wants to support people that blow up buses of civilians. But you've fallen for the extremist Chinese propaganda that because one group of Uyghurs at one point blew up a bus, that we can't look positively on other Uyghurs who might fight against tyranny. And despite your, and even my own, disagreements with Islam -- the Uyghurs are virtually 100% muslim so of course any society they form is likely to be based by their own choice around some form of shariah law and less than libertarian role for women (to pretend like it is just militia that wants this in opposite to the Uyghurs in general is just fraud) I personally also just don't buy into your system that if some people did bad thing X at one point, then it's also bad if they go after tyrants at some other point -- and it is possible even if they are even more tyrannical than the tyrants that their mutual self destruction with the tyrants works towards liberty as a form of tactical benefit. The US massacred a bunch of people in Vietnam, that doesn't mean I damn them for eliminating Bin Laden, in fact I quite agreed with them for doing so despite the fact the US military themselves have engaged in "terrorism" by your definition at other times. That is, the US military themselves are "terrorists" that I tactically acknowledge the benefit of when it suits the goal of liberty -- and in fact acknowledging the tactical benefit of evil people is sadly often necessary (as I've pointed out, the loss of alliance with several theocratic arab militias is responsible for the downfall of fairly libertarian Rojava). Listing these entities formally as terrorists in those instances erodes their tactical benefit and erodes the pursuit of liberty.

mothballed 9mo ago

OK so anyone fighting a stable tyrant country for political ends is a terrorist in your estimation. I think by some definition of "terrorist" you are correct. But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations. And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might. And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).

kdheiwns 9mo ago
The US also props up tyrants in South and Central America. Those people have killed countless and I would consider support of those groups acts of terrorism as well. The Uyghur and Chechen groups want to oppose strict Islamic law, and if you want to support those groups, you're free to go off to Afghanistan or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them. As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign. And I don't think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  I'm glad we can agree the US did not list them as terrorists for the kind of red herring reasons you listed under your own value system, then. Your own opinion of terrorism has nothing to do with why the US pretends to be against China but then declares as terrorists people with the credible power to fight back, even if everything you say is true. > or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them. This is hilarious to hear you lecture me about, considering I've been shot at by ISIS, and been to both Iraq and Syria, so please lecture me more with your experience what it's like to be in these regions. Yes I am free to go to areas that have been in conflict with ISIS, and I have. Of course, hilariously, you fail to note the Uyghurs were opponents of ISIS in Afghanistan, another words, working to eliminate ISIS. So even if one engaged in your little dare about going to Afghanistan, they'd find it your little tale earlier was false. The Uyghurs are not bringing ISIS to China, why would they fly their enemies flag? >As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign. The KRG did (Kurdish Iraq), because ISIS was defeated much more easily. Same with many other factions in Iraq that defeated ISIS. ISIS was just part of the power vacuum that emerged after Saddam, but eliminating Saddam was the first step in breaking up the pieces, ISIS was a natural next adversary but a divided piece. You can't expect to overthrow a tyrant and not end up with fragmented other tyrants to also have to deal with. You keep trying to dominate the discussion with all the bad things various groups have done while acknowledging the US doesn't give a single shit about it, proving it's a total side show to our discussion. It's not clear why you keep re-iterating it other than it gives you a sense of moral superiority over the US government and value signal your position, which we all know you probably genuinely have. >think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses. I'm pretty sure the PKK blew up a bus at one point... so we're not allowed to support Kurds who want independence? The Turks take your same approach. Your argument here is patently absurd. Of course no one wants to support people that blow up buses of civilians. But you've fallen for the extremist Chinese propaganda that because one group of Uyghurs at one point blew up a bus, that we can't look positively on other Uyghurs who might fight against tyranny. And despite your, and even my own, disagreements with Islam -- the Uyghurs are virtually 100% muslim so of course any society they form is likely to be based by their own choice around some form of shariah law and less than libertarian role for women (to pretend like it is just militia that wants this in opposite to the Uyghurs in general is just fraud) I personally also just don't buy into your system that if some people did bad thing X at one point, then it's also bad if they go after tyrants at some other point -- and it is possible even if they are even more tyrannical than the tyrants that their mutual self destruction with the tyrants works towards liberty as a form of tactical benefit. The US massacred a bunch of people in Vietnam, that doesn't mean I damn them for eliminating Bin Laden, in fact I quite agreed with them for doing so despite the fact the US military themselves have engaged in "terrorism" by your definition at other times. That is, the US military themselves are "terrorists" that I tactically acknowledge the benefit of when it suits the goal of liberty -- and in fact acknowledging the tactical benefit of evil people is sadly often necessary (as I've pointed out, the loss of alliance with several theocratic arab militias is responsible for the downfall of fairly libertarian Rojava). Listing these entities formally as terrorists in those instances erodes their tactical benefit and erodes the pursuit of liberty.