Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

And, established powers dont attempt to do EXACTLY that?

I agree, there is a difference between ordinary fear and "Terror"-- Ordinary fear is not nearly as crippling as abject terror is, however, the subjectivity of where the line is drawn causes all manner of problems with the definitional difference. Where is the line between irrational fears, and terror?

(Say for instance, a person with irrational fears of dogs, being terrified of a toothless puppy- Something that could not in any conceivable sense be capable of harming them.)

This subjectivity is at the heart of the issue.  The established power may hold irrational fears about the revolutionaries, thus branding them terrorists, and asserting that the revolutionaries indeed do cause them to suffer abject terror. Ironically, this irrational fear may be what prompts the revolutionary behaviour in the first place, due to oppressive actions by the established power to combat what it considers a terrifying thing.

Reality check-- The reaction of mainstream conservatives toward syrian refugees.

[Culise]

Yes, state agencies do attempt to instill fear of consequences in certain circumstances, which is why I assert that such a simple and direct definition of "terrorism" renders it so wide as to be entirely meaningless.  Such a wide definition conjoins in a single concept the idea of the Oklahoma City bombing (for a non-state agency) or the Lockerbie bombing (for a state agency) with Operation Fortitude or maskirovka. 

[wierd]

Again, it depends on what side of the history you are looking at: Established power, or Revolutionary Faction.

To the established powers in the middle east, the rise of ISIS is terrifying.
To the ISIS fighters, their rise is a revolution away from sinful/profane secularist rule to a more "pure" form of governance.

The ISIS fighters use disinformation and threats of violence against personel and materiel, in much the same fashion that WWII sappers and military fighters used threats of violence against established Nazi holdings and assertions of legitimate claims. (clarify: Assertions that claims are legitimate.)

There are no "good guys" in war.

[Culise]

I do not dispute that there are no "good guys" in war.  I do, however, wonder why you say such when it quite blatantly ignores the thrust of my point, which is that a simple definition of terrorism as "that which begets fear" is so wide as to be effectively meaningless.  The mere threat of violence, simply put, is not enough to classify something as a terroristic act.

[wierd]

More, "The use of fear as a tool to exact political change."

I already pointed out that there is such a thing as nonviolent revolution. See Ghandi's passive civil disobedience.

I was pointing out that violent revolution is basically synonymous with terrorism, since the use of violence is itself an invocation of a source of fear, to exact a political change.

Likewise, the US government's use of the Sept 11 bombings to introduce draconian security theatre and a surveillance state is likewise terrorism-- the use of fear (of additional attacks, if they dont get their way) to enact a political change (Institution of the FISA court and pals.)

This irony is not lost to me.

[Culise]

The irony only exists because you've adopted such a wide definition in the first place.  I'm certainly not condoning the fear-mongering that led to such travesties of justices such as the USA PATRIOT Act, but there is still a world of difference between it and suicide bombings, and to attempt to equivocate the two only undermines the very real criticisms of the former.

[Loud Whispers]

Let us compare and contrast the defintions of "Revolutionary" and "terrorist"--

You do realize terrorist has many definitions right, and that no one agrees on what a terrorism is? You've picked a definition which closest fits, and yet still does not fit m7

[wierd]

Culise:

I see different kinds of terrorism. You are focusing more on "hard" terrorism, while I assert that "soft" terrorism, is still terrorism.

Loud Whispers:

I grabbed the very first result from google. I did not attempt cherry picking.

[Loud Whispers]

Well that wasn't my point; if we want to talk cherry picking though Google caters to its profile of you.

[smjjames]

And what, exactly, did the French call their revolution?

Oh right... ..The Reign of Terror...

That was a period during the revolution, not the whole thing. Editwhiletyping: Fooking Firefox, why do you crash at wikipedia?

[Strife26]

I doubt that the GOP blocked it for common sense reasons so much as "guvmint trying to take guns" reasons. Protecting 2nd Amendment rights for terrorists and crazy people is a core NRA value. Which means its a GOP value.

That said, yeah the list has considerable flaws. The question is whether we would rather infringe on the rights of some innocents or allow some dangerous people to arm themselves. In almost any other framing of that question, the political positions would be reversed. I think that's a telling sign what this is really about.

This is a very salient question.

[smjjames]

Trump grows more extreme

I realize that things are made complicated (if not impossible conditions) due to the fact that this is a major election year with all kinds of rhetoric being thrown around, but I'm seeing this as the best chance (if not the last one) in a long while for people to actually agree on something about gun control.

More, "The use of fear as a tool to exact political change."

I already pointed out that there is such a thing as nonviolent revolution. See Ghandi's passive civil disobedience.

I was pointing out that violent revolution is basically synonymous with terrorism, since the use of violence is itself an invocation of a source of fear, to exact a political change.

Likewise, the US government's use of the Sept 11 bombings to introduce draconian security theatre and a surveillance state is likewise terrorism-- the use of fear (of additional attacks, if they dont get their way) to enact a political change (Institution of the FISA court and pals.)

This irony is not lost to me.

That was more of a full bodied kneejerk reaction to fear and the subsequent use of it to their own ends (though they were probably just as fearful as the populace).

Edit: Hm, apparently the wife of the San Bernardino attacker was radicalized before she came to the US. While this plays right into the Republican rhetoric, we have to figure out how to fix things without playing into ISIS's agenda. Which might be impossible considering the political climate.

[Loud Whispers]

Seems pretty standard from Bob the builder imo

[smjjames]

Seems pretty standard from Bob the builder imo

Not having watched Bob the Builder, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Loud Whispers]

The first politician to pride himself on fuckhueg walls since Hadrian or Huang