Yeah, and the guys with $4B is “more poor” than the guys with $5B. That doesn’t make the guy with $4B poor.
Well, yeah – and the guy with all of $4 to his name is “less poor” than the one with $3. But can we do a continuum, where Guy A is poor, and Guy C is rich, and there’s some dollar amount where some Guy B in the middle isn’t rich but isn’t poor?
No, I disagree. If I make a threat and succeed in bullying someone into submission, that doesn’t make the a more peaceful person than I would have been had my victim resisted, and I had to follow through on my threat to get what I wanted. I’m the same person in both cases, with the same attitudes and the same values and the same willingness to resort to force.
And in both cases, if we apply this thinking to a political situation, I would be a terrorist. Bomb scares are terrorist actions just as much as actual bombings are.
But what if you’re bluffing? What if you wouldn’t follow through on your threat?
Oh, I agree that both actions involve terrorizing people as, well, a terrorist; that’s sort of my point. But my other point is, one uses terror without actually causing any injuries, which is bad; and the other uses terror while mutilating a bunch of people and killing lots of others – which seems different, in some small but significant way.
If you’re willing to follow through on your threat, whether you do or not is a matter of circumstance; it doesn’t tell me anything fundamental about you and in particular about whether you are a violent person.
If you’re just bluffing - you’ll threaten, but in the end will back down rather than follow through - then I’d say yes, you are a less violent persons than the one who would follow through, but still a violent person, since the threat it itself a form of violence.
I’m envisioning people setting off explosive belts, except instead of ball bearings and nails they’re filled with glitter.
A plane flies over a city, dropping [del]bombs[/del] “Could’ve Bombed Ya!” pamphlets…
Much better put, thanks.
What would probably happen is that some other nation (be it the USA, the EU, Russia, China or a neighbor whose power is eroding) will react at some point.
So yes, eventually their ideology will interfer with someone else’s plans and they are stopped.
Probably based on ‘undermining sovereignty in our country’ or something like that. First you get some economic sanctions, then other types, maybe a bloccade if we’re really serious along with threats and we’ll keep ramping it up from there.
Let’s say they’re really persistent in their peaceful protests against the rest of the world, yes someone will find a reason to attack them. Especially if they keep expanding.