4 ms·

Was Malcom X a "terrorist"? Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"? Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"? "He tried to beat

by tga_d 12y ago

Was Malcom X a "terrorist"? Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"? Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"? "He tried to beat up an old man in a restaurant"? Really? When was that? Because the closest I know of was the David Irving incident, where he protested the speaking event of a holocaust denier at a restaurant, and one person in the group (not Hammond) accidentally hit an unrelated patron with a bottle. They never tried to "beat up" anyone. And "he's threatened many people with physical harm"? Again, where are you getting these ridiculous statements from? Your claim that he's "been to prison multiple times" is particularly laughable. He's been arrested multiple times. So had Martin Luther King Jr. and pretty much every civil rights activist I know of, along with plenty of the anti-war protesters in the 2000s, Occupy protesters in the 2010s, and hell, members of congress and mayors I know of. Are they all "terrorists"? Hammond has only been to prison for the hacking charges. Not every arrest means you land in prison, and assuming that it does is insanely presumptuous. "And he's involved with the hacking and leaking of private and public information, basically to cause damage to the federal government, capitalistic entities and individuals." He leaked information he thought should be public. It was illegal, and a lot of people (most?) agree that it should be. But how was this significantly different than blacks doing illegal sit-ins at segregated restaurants during the civil rights movement, other than the former offending your personal values this time? Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise. [correction: He's actually been to prison once before this, for another hacking incident.]

tedks 12y ago
>Was Malcom X a "terrorist"? Almost assuredly yes, though the Black Panther Party would be a better example. >Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"? Yes. >Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"? Many, yes. Prison can be very radicalizing, especially since gangs form along ethnic lines, which suggest political outlooks. > Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise. I don't see how you can make this assertion. Breaking the law means you are rejecting the fundamental foundation upon which society is based. If you reject that, you are open to all possible outcomes. Any act of breaking the law is a rejection of all law and with it all order, stability, and moral uprightness. Are you not afraid of that outcome? Does it not strike fear into your heart? Or did you watch The Purge and think it was some sort of comedy? Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics were appropriate for his time, but today we live in a different time, and they would be considered terrorism. Anti-war protesters are frequently terroristic. The Occupy movement was overtly terrorist, as it intended to cause economic harm for political ends. It's important to always remember that while people might advocate for causes we agree to in principle, we live in a society of laws and rules, and we all must stay within those rules. There is a beautifully documented, perfectly effective mechanism in our society for effecting change: liberal democracy. If the change you wish to make is true, right, and just, it will inevitably take place without any requirement for lawbreaking. All you need to do is call your representative, and vote. Problem solved. However, if you go outside of this, you are a terrorist and you deserve to be targeted, hunted, and eliminated by the state, in order that our society be protected, and that we all be able to continue to live in prosperity and peace.
- acabal 12y ago
  It sounds like you're conflating "terrorist" with "criminal". A criminal is, by definition, a person who breaks the law. A terrorist has a different definition--back in the day it meant something along the lines of committing acts of mass violence for a political/ideological motive. Unabomber, plane hijackers in the 70's and 80's, McVeigh, etc. Putting Ferguson looters in the same class as the Unabomber shows precisely how dangerous such a conflation can be. According to you, missing a payment on your cable bill--i.e. breaking the law--is an act of terrorism. What a terrifying world it is, the one you seem to live in.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  I downvoted you because you seem to be conflating breaking the law (even unjust ones, and you cite MLK Jr. and presumably others in the tradition including Ghandi) with acts of terrorism. I would like to express my opinion that your sort of thinking is very dangerous and something to be discouraged.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Whoosh?
    - e12e 12y ago
      Indeed. But this is the core of the matter. Black people defending themselves with guns in the 60s would probably make them "terrorists" (even if the white people throwing fire-bombs, shooting and lynching would be "terrorists" too). Now this need to be connected to what "terrorist" means today: it means being on a watch-list (questionable, but ok -- the whole reason for a clandestine police force is to monitor those that might be willing and capable to attack civilian infrastructure -- for whatever reasons) -- and also placing them on kill lists. The latter is not ok, by any standard. Could we imagine calling in a drone strike on a black panther activist, because he was in a "part of town sympathetic to his cause" and the number of non-adult-male people in the kill zone constituted "acceptable collateral damage"? I think not.
      - 12y ago

by tga_d 12y ago

tedks 12y ago

>Was Malcom X a "terrorist"? Almost assuredly yes, though the Black Panther Party would be a better example. >Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"? Yes. >Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"? Many, yes. Prison can be very radicalizing, especially since gangs form along ethnic lines, which suggest political outlooks. > Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise. I don't see how you can make this assertion. Breaking the law means you are rejecting the fundamental foundation upon which society is based. If you reject that, you are open to all possible outcomes. Any act of breaking the law is a rejection of all law and with it all order, stability, and moral uprightness. Are you not afraid of that outcome? Does it not strike fear into your heart? Or did you watch The Purge and think it was some sort of comedy? Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics were appropriate for his time, but today we live in a different time, and they would be considered terrorism. Anti-war protesters are frequently terroristic. The Occupy movement was overtly terrorist, as it intended to cause economic harm for political ends. It's important to always remember that while people might advocate for causes we agree to in principle, we live in a society of laws and rules, and we all must stay within those rules. There is a beautifully documented, perfectly effective mechanism in our society for effecting change: liberal democracy. If the change you wish to make is true, right, and just, it will inevitably take place without any requirement for lawbreaking. All you need to do is call your representative, and vote. Problem solved. However, if you go outside of this, you are a terrorist and you deserve to be targeted, hunted, and eliminated by the state, in order that our society be protected, and that we all be able to continue to live in prosperity and peace.

acabal 12y ago
It sounds like you're conflating "terrorist" with "criminal". A criminal is, by definition, a person who breaks the law. A terrorist has a different definition--back in the day it meant something along the lines of committing acts of mass violence for a political/ideological motive. Unabomber, plane hijackers in the 70's and 80's, McVeigh, etc. Putting Ferguson looters in the same class as the Unabomber shows precisely how dangerous such a conflation can be. According to you, missing a payment on your cable bill--i.e. breaking the law--is an act of terrorism. What a terrifying world it is, the one you seem to live in.
wavefunction 12y ago
I downvoted you because you seem to be conflating breaking the law (even unjust ones, and you cite MLK Jr. and presumably others in the tradition including Ghandi) with acts of terrorism. I would like to express my opinion that your sort of thinking is very dangerous and something to be discouraged.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Whoosh?
  - e12e 12y ago
    Indeed. But this is the core of the matter. Black people defending themselves with guns in the 60s would probably make them "terrorists" (even if the white people throwing fire-bombs, shooting and lynching would be "terrorists" too). Now this need to be connected to what "terrorist" means today: it means being on a watch-list (questionable, but ok -- the whole reason for a clandestine police force is to monitor those that might be willing and capable to attack civilian infrastructure -- for whatever reasons) -- and also placing them on kill lists. The latter is not ok, by any standard. Could we imagine calling in a drone strike on a black panther activist, because he was in a "part of town sympathetic to his cause" and the number of non-adult-male people in the kill zone constituted "acceptable collateral damage"? I think not.
    - 12y ago