3 ms·

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 Ghan

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.
  - tedks 12y ago
    >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. This is essentially what happened to Fred Hampton. People don't like to admit it, but freedom is protected by blood, and in order to maintain the society we have, we have to continually suppress the people who would seek to destroy what we've worked so hard to achieve.
    - e12e 12y ago
      I wasn't familiar with that particular case[1] -- but as I gather, he was assassinated by an FBI/Police kill-squad -- so more similar to how the US trained dictators to operate across the Americas, than to how the US operates in Yemen and Pakistan. I obviously don't support kill-squads as a means to "support democracy" either -- but there's still a difference between going in and killing one man (even if 20+ were expected to be found/killed) -- an dropping a couple of hell-fire missiles on a civilian structure. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
      - tedks 12y ago
        They killed two men, and shot at more people. Hampton's pregnant girlfriend could have been killed. But really, all we need is this: >I ... don't support... democracy You're the real terrorist.
        e12e 12y ago
        >> I ... don't support... democracy > > You're the real terrorist. Maybe I was unclear. I don't consider Pinochet a paragon of democracy, and I don't support neither illegal drone strikes, or illegal kill squads. I still think there's a difference between hands-on assassination and drone strikes -- while both remain deplorable.

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.
- tedks 12y ago
  >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. This is essentially what happened to Fred Hampton. People don't like to admit it, but freedom is protected by blood, and in order to maintain the society we have, we have to continually suppress the people who would seek to destroy what we've worked so hard to achieve.
  - e12e 12y ago
    I wasn't familiar with that particular case[1] -- but as I gather, he was assassinated by an FBI/Police kill-squad -- so more similar to how the US trained dictators to operate across the Americas, than to how the US operates in Yemen and Pakistan. I obviously don't support kill-squads as a means to "support democracy" either -- but there's still a difference between going in and killing one man (even if 20+ were expected to be found/killed) -- an dropping a couple of hell-fire missiles on a civilian structure. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
    - tedks 12y ago
      They killed two men, and shot at more people. Hampton's pregnant girlfriend could have been killed. But really, all we need is this: >I ... don't support... democracy You're the real terrorist.
      - e12e 12y ago
        >> I ... don't support... democracy > > You're the real terrorist. Maybe I was unclear. I don't consider Pinochet a paragon of democracy, and I don't support neither illegal drone strikes, or illegal kill squads. I still think there's a difference between hands-on assassination and drone strikes -- while both remain deplorable.