7 ms·
This. When the US government decides to label you “terrorist organization”, it means that you are now targeted by the most potent state actor on earth, which wi
by stymaar 1mo ago
This. When the US government decides to label you “terrorist organization”, it means that you are now targeted by the most potent state actor on earth, which will go as far as blowing up weddings in your neighborhood to stop you.
So unless you're willing to become a literal terrorist organization and die with a bunch of your friends in an uphill battle (not technically unwinnable, but at least lopsided and the casualties will be tremendous), the only option is to cave.
- Waterluvian 1mo agoWeddings if you’re lucky. They’ll also murder 150+ girls at school.
- vrganj 1mo agoWhats the dictionary definition of terror again? > violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion > especially: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror Now, which actor in this story does this sound like? The webhoster exercising their speech rights or the apparatus bombing schools and weddings in order to get their way?
- stanleykm 1mo agoIt sounds like that until you realize that the baseline behavior is for countries that are not in NATO to be subservient to NATO. So, as you can see, it is the governments and populations that are coercing and intimidating themselves and NATO is helpfully returning them to normalcy.
- Ruphin 1mo agoThe situation in Iran has nothing to do with NATO really. It is a US initiative, and NATO was not involved in any way in decision making or policy.
- jpoesen 1mo agoOh sweet summer child, you would be absolutely correct were it not for your unfortunate confounding of NATO with the USA.
- runarberg 1mo agoI am biased here, as somebody who grew up next to an American military base in Iceland and had a pro-communist upbringing and learned to hate NATO (as well as the American imperialist agenda as a whole) from an early age. I don‘t see a difference. I was told this when I was a child, and as I’ve grown up and seen more of the world (including by immigrating to the USA) I am more convinced then ever. In my eyes, there is no meaningful difference between USA and NATO.
- Waterluvian 1mo agoThere clearly is. Because NATO isn’t getting involved in America’s idiotic war of aggression and Trump is very upset about this. They’ve spent years being very upset about every other NATO nation’s spending, too. So even if you don’t believe it, the U.S. clearly cares about NATO member behaviour and therefore recognizes a distinction.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- selfhoster1312 1mo agoThey have been involved in pretty much all previous USA "idiotic wars of aggression", so while it may become useful in the future to make a distinction, it's also fair to appreciate that this distinction doesn't make a lot sense to a whole bunch of people.
- Waterluvian 1mo agoThe one time NATO was called on to defend a member was the U.S. asking for help after 9/11. And nobody but the UK followed them into Iraq, shortly after the Afghanistan war began. So there’s certainly strong history of NATO not just doing whatever the U.S. is up to. I recall this time as a very strong refusal of the above miscategorization of NATO. Bush and his cronies had a whole “you’re with us or against us” tantrum when NATO didn’t follow. I think Americans even did some proto-Trump trolling with “freedom fries” and other nonsense.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- mitxela 1mo agoI believe the pragmatic definition is "disagreement with the government".
- Muromec 1mo agoLasting and violent disagreement with the government, usually on ideological grounds, without being a recognised agent of (another?) government. Remove any qualifier and you end up in some other category.
- vrganj 1mo agoHow is hosting a website and an email violent?
- selfhoster1312 1mo agoNot arguing in favor of banning A/I, but the US administration claims A/I email services were used to coordinate sabotage actions. I mean, that's as stupid as saying telephone networks or paper sheets were used to coordinate sabotage actions. Furthermore, the noblogs.org platform (previously hosted by A/I) is used to host a lot of politically-motivated content, including news and statements by various resistance groups across the world, which of course is considered terrorist by the USA, but legally should fall under freedom of the press.
- mitxela 1mo agoSo Google will be shut down tomorrow, right?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- dvt 1mo ago> So unless you're willing to become a literal terrorist organization and die with a bunch of your friends in an uphill battle (not technically unwinnable, but at least lopsided and the casualties will be tremendous), the only option is to cave. Honestly, the internet has made folks so lazy. It's very ironic that the most "revolutionary" act taken recently (January 6) was actually done by the far-right. Yeah: if you believe in something, you need to actually get out of the basement, grab a gun, and storm the Capitol. And if you take it all the way, a lot of people are going to die. That's how revolution works. Unless we're all LARPing? But Americans/Westerners (left, right, center) are way too comfortable for a revolution, so for people that are, or have been, actual dissidents (think Arab Spring, or IRA, or ETA, or whatever), this is all just a big meme.
- Barrin92 1mo agoJan 6, didn't work, not entirely sure why you bring this up as a blueprint for anyone. It was an actual LARP and as Bruno Macaes wrote resembled a bunch of people making it to the end of a videogame, then running around confused in costumes and going for a drink. What did work for them was pouring money into the election system and party apparatus, media, the courts and then taking control over politics
- jfengel 1mo agoWhat worked was getting people stirred up to the point that some would turn to violence. Even now a majority of their party believe they were justified. That helped them take control of politics. And so that tactic will surely turn people to violence again. The violence itself may not be effective but the level of outrage is.
- xienze 1mo ago> Jan 6, didn't work, not entirely sure why you bring this up as a blueprint for anyone. Might want to let the Democrats know that. According to them the government was >this< close to being overthrown. Which is funny, because if anyone truly believes that, we don't stand a chance against pretty much any country on earth.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- shevy-java 1mo ago> you are now targeted by the most potent state actor on earth Well, it is a mafia. See the international court investigating war crimes is also targeted by the orange clown-brigade mafia. > the only option is to cave Objectively speaking you are correct, but I don't think this has to be the case. For instance, why is that orange mafia so powerful? That is the thing that has to be fixed on every level, not just by taking back what their billionaires stole from us.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- ghandiluvsu 1mo ago[flagged]
- JuniperMesos 1mo agoYeah, what A/I is experiencing is nothing different than what they themselves would seek to do to anyone they consider to be a Nazi.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- mitxela 1mo agoAnd when you are the victim of a serial killer, it's no different than what you would seek to do to serial killers. Is that a good or bad thing?
- 1matin 1mo agoAs a person living in the place you're mentioning, I have to confidently state that you've been brainwashed
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- wseqyrku 1mo agoI see you get your news from the internet.
- georgemcbay 1mo ago> which will go as far as blowing up weddings in your neighborhood to stop you. And in case the wedding reference wasn't explicit enough, this isn't just Trump, it was also Obama. It pains me to summon the specter of "both sides" because the Republicans are so much worse. But the majority of national level Democrats aren't inherently good. They are just less bad (and on some issues they can be close to equally as bad).
- lrvick 1mo ago> not technically unwinnable Most should take those odds over giving up another inch of freedom.
- golem14 1mo agoPeople with minor kids and/or dependent spouses/family often disagree.
- selfhoster1312 1mo agoI don't have a scientific study at hand, but historically many revolutionaries and resistance fighters were family men and women with children who precisely cared for their children's future.
- golem14 1mo agoHistorically, those family fighters had really trouble keeping their families alive and very little to lose.
- JumpCrisscross 1mo ago> When the US government decides to label you “terrorist organization” We really need laws removing the power from the President to unilaterally declare organizations terrorists. At least not long term without their ability to fight the designation in court. (Same for tariffs. There is no case where one needs emergency power to tariff or sanction anything. If you need to conduct urgent police action, court-ordered asset freezes are plenty.)
- vachina 1mo agoWe actually need to decouple ourselves such that such threats can be ignored.
- JumpCrisscross 1mo ago> We actually need to decouple ourselves We’re in a globalized world with aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. The fallacy of thinking a major economy (or significant nation) can decouple from any expansionist regime is a lesson I thought we learned from the first half of the last century.
- mitxela 1mo agoUS weapons are near useless due to prolonged institutional corruption, just like Russian ones. This was learned from Iran.
- JumpCrisscross 1mo ago> US weapons are near useless due to prolonged institutional corruption, just like Russian ones At invading or achieving any geopolitical objective, yes (though I wouldn’t compare the American military-industrial base to Russia’s). At causing at least as much chaos as sanctions, no.
- ben_w 1mo agoDifferent kinds of failure. The Russian weapons (at various points) were missing critical components, maintenance, fuel, etc. The US weapons appear to have functioned as specified, but the commander-in-chief appears to know marginally less about the Iranian strategic situation than I personally do. And this is not a boast, I have zero military training and only follow the occasional commentator like Anders Puck Nielsen and read the odd Wikipedia page when something surprising comes up in the news or a comment, and pay enough attention to the news and comments to be capable of surprise, it's just that I asked someone around 20 years ago if the War On Terror would go to Iran given all the obvious threads leading there, and they told me it would go down basically as we saw it going down this year: very expensive, no real progress, strategic failure no matter what military victories happen.