4 ms·
Whats the dictionary definition of terror again? > violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion > especially: violent or de
by vrganj 1mo ago
Whats 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.
- Sharlin 1mo agoAnd making nude statues wear clothes. Because freedom or something, I guess.
- runarberg 1mo agoThis is simply false history. Every NATO member went to Afghanistan with the USA. Even Iceland despite not having a traditional army participated in the invasion. As for Iraq: UK, Poland, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark provided soldiers to partake in the illegal invasion. Even Iceland participated in the propaganda war by putting them self on the farcical “Coalition the willing” along plenty of other NATO countries. It is very hard to see NATO as anything other then an extension of USA‘s imperial ambitions. It is as if in the year 1986 you would look at the Warsaw pact and claim this is a pact of independent nations and has nothing to do with the interest of the Soviet Union.
- 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?