Okay, so how does an act go from terrorism to not terrorism by dint of having gotten a permit for it? That’s the position you’re taking up here.
No, it isn’t, not really, but were such edge cases to exist, they would go from terrorism to non-terrorism precisely by getting a permit.
Just as something can go from being illegal to being legal by having a permit issued.
Terrorist acts, you see, are illegal acts. So, if you have a permit, if your actions are legal, those acts do not terrorise.
Allied strategic bombing against civilian centers during WWII was called terror bombing, justified on the grounds that it would lower the target nation’s morale. If the Axis had won it’s probable Allied leaders and planners would have been hanged for war crimes. Curtis LeMay thought so.
This discussion in general reminds me of when liberals were talking in circles over whether Iraq was legal or not. Years and years of hand wringing. Talk about beside the point. People on the outside didn’t care if the Soviet’s invasion of Afghanistan comported with USSR law or not. The whole point of having power is being able to do what you want.
If the Axis had won, it’s pretty certain that Allied leaders would have been executed regardless of their crimes or lack thereof.
Bolding mine, because I find it hard to believe anyone could actually write something so stupid.
An act terrorizes based on its legality.
Stunning.
I ask again; was the bombing of Hiroshima terrorism?
Wow. You are one motherfucking evil bastard. Supporting turning attack dogs on children? Seriously, you’re either a troll, or you need some serious psychiatric help, because soe of what you’ve said here sounds downright sociopathic. You’d probably support the Gestapo.
In the example I gave, Connor set loose attack dogs and fire hoses ON PEACEFUL PROTESTORS. Including CHILDREN. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Pretty much.
So was Harry Truman a terrorist?
In other words, the Holocaust was not terrorism.
Is their being children supposed to be a mitigating circumstance? Children can still be criminals. Children can still cause physical harm or property damage. Children can still kill. Simply being a child does not excuse one from the consequences of their criminal actions.
Bull Connor was a segregationist asshole. There, I said it. He was a bigoted jerk and he often neglected his duty to the law in favor of his prejudices, as when he allowed the KKK to assault the Freedom Riders without police protection.
That doesn’t mean he did not possess the lawful authority to use dogs and water cannons to dispel unlawful gatherings, or that other less ethically questionable authority figures do not possess those powers.
But jaywalking is. At least in Smapti and Steophan land.
No, it wasn’t. It was several other things, including genocide, murder, and crime against humanity, but it was not terrorism. Is the Holocaust not bad enough by your standards, that you must abuse the definition of the word “terrorism” so that it applies to the Holocaust as well?
Cite for me saying that jaywalking is terrorism?
It just goes to show, doesn’t it, that when you’re determined enough you can come up with a definition of terrorism that includes blocking traffic without a permit but excludes the Holocaust.
But OK - the latter was sponsored and approved by a state actor, so not terrorism by your definition. Was the Lockerbie (Pan Am 103) bombing terrorism?
Okay, fine. Then what about, as was stated Krystallnacht? Or the Night of the Long Knives?
(Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in my view, were not terrorism, it was a much, much more complex issue, and was not necessarily done to inspire terror, but to avoid a long, lengthy invasion which would have cost even more lives on both sides. The Allies wanted an end to a grueling war, and their objective was for Japan to surrender unconditionally. But the whole debate about that is for another thread.)
Jaywalking often disrupts traffic – cars might have to slow down unexpectedly to avoid accidents. You said that disrupting traffic was terrorism.
It involves the illegal disruption of traffic without a permit, which you say is terrorism. Pure, unadulterated terrorism!
The thing that gets me about tighty-righties’ reactions to anti-Black police brutality is that, in their view, people in the streets marching and protesting the brutality constitutes “terrorism” (as if some privileged frat-boy type would simply croak if he has to take a five-minute detour driving his Land Rover to go ‘chill with the boys’), but there’s just no possible way the police could be committing an act of terrorism with their widespread, systematic abuse of the African-American community. Nope, no terrorism there.
And, while we’re at it, ain’t no snow on Mount Everest, bears don’t shit in the woods, and the sky is made of purple cotton candy.
If terrorism only accounts for criminal acts, and the government can not commit criminal acts as long as they get to pass the laws to justify their own actions, then state sponsored terrorism is a contradiction of terms and vanishes in a puff of logic. It may be against the laws of other states, but then things get too complicated for such simplistic power worshipping analysis.
Forget domestic terrorism. If you want to bring the system to a halt, try driving slow in the fast lane. Add 10 minutes to your lunch break. The center can not hold!