4 ms·
Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, bu
by JuniperMesos 4mo ago
Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's true in all armed conflicts between nations and aspiring nations.
- DangitBobby 4mo agoIsn't terrorism typically carried out against civilians and non-combatants? Surely not all violence is terrorism or it ceases to have any meaning.
- JuniperMesos 4mo agoIf you're treating cops and guards at an immigration detention facility as "non-civilians" and "combatants", then this is a good sign that the thing you're doing is engaging in some kind of ideological rebellion against the state. Which is fair to call terrorism, unless you're in favor of it, in which case you'd call it freedom fighting or rebellion but with positive valence.
- DangitBobby 4mo agoPeople who are above the law and shoot at other people with impunity are combatants. What the fuck are we even talking about? Ideological rebellion against the state alone does not terrorism make.
- prepend 4mo agoIt does if you lose. If Al Qaeda had toppled the government and institutes the global caliphate, then they wouldn’t be terrorists.
- a96 4mo agoYes. That's the defining difference to guerrilla warfare.
- prepend 4mo agoNot really. Check out IRA, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, etc. Frequently military or government workers are the target.
- tsol 4mo agoIn that case America's founding would be rooted in terrorism. Against the British monarchy, of course.
- JuniperMesos 4mo agoYes; if they had lost the British government would've executed most of the American founding fathers.
- prepend 4mo agoAnd if they Nazis had won they would be cool, etc etc. I don’t think your point is debated by anyone.