This is the inevitable conclusion of decades of justifying endless violence by labeling people “terrorists”. The word has no meaning other than “target of the state”. And now the state is this.
"It was at dawn of Abril 25 of 1974, during the parade of Practical Cavalry School, in Santarém, that Salgueiro Maia uttered the famous speech:
‘Gentlemen, as everyone knows, there are various modalities of State.
The socialist States,
the capitalist States,
and the state we came to.
Well, in this solemn night, we will end the state we came to!
So, whoever wants to come with me, we go to Lisbon and we will end this.
Whoever is voluntary, go out, form up.
Whoever doesn’t want to go out, stay here.’Every 240 of those man that eard this words, spoken so firmly, so characteristic of Salgueiro Maia, formed up immediately in front of him.
Next they went to Lisbon and marched on the dictatorship."
And with more and more military/citizens joining in through the day, they ended a 41 year old dictatorship that kept Portugal in poverty and ignorence.
The only good things about Salazar (Slytherin…yeah Rowling used his name) was (mostly) keeping Portugal out of the wars (mostly) and dying.
But it is domestic terrorism, it completely fits that definition. I’m not saying I really give a shit, but let’s be clear what’s happening.
Is it though? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal by creating fear in a population. The people who are targeting Tesla dealerships aren’t directing their message to the general population, they’re directing it to one Nazi in particular.
Rage bait used to be believable
Maybe I’m missing something if the “attacks” in question are water balloons or whatever. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that something more severe was implied by that word. Like arson, or similar.
“Think before you drink before you drive me mad.”
Carefully chosen words to make people go “oh, that’s terrible” and side with what Trump is saying.
terrorism
n 1: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I’m cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That’s harm.
Maybe not a lot of harm. But it’s harm.
In the U.K. it’s criminal damage, not sure what the USA exact term will be, but it won’t be terrorism.
Still not violence
It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.
Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.
It’s not terrorism if it’s not even trying to kill people. That’s just destruction of property or arson in this case.
Property damage is not violence against civilians.
What if I blew up a water tower?
Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)
Who is the intended audience of that comment that you believe will equate sources of food and water to swasticars?
He didn’t say “swasticars.” He said “property.” Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.
My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it’s just property damage.
Hahahaha, you went and one-upped your own stupid comment. Yes, clearly any rational person sees vandalizing swasticars to be just as evil as destroying essential infrastructure for human survival or terrorizing innocent people with racial hatred that has historically let to their murders.
You’re a fucking idiot cosplaying as an iNTelLecTuAl.
You’re also blocked because you’re a waste of everyone’s time.
Then your act of vandalism/sabotage would have effects that harms people. Is this so difficult for you to understand? SMH.
It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”
Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.
Anything that’s not the state is civilian. That includes civilian property. And I, too, cheer on violence against the oppressive class.
I don’t consider property destruction “violence”. Violence for me can only occur if there is a nervous system involved. Defining it otherwise seems a bit disingenuous, imo. Vandalism is not the same as an act against a person or animal.
If I break into your home and trash the place, it’s not violence? You should speak to people who experienced that. Granted, this is between real people and not corporations. And there is a line, somewhere, between vandalism and destruction where it turns to violence. It’s compIicated. I just completely disagree with the statement that destruction of property is never violence.
They try to make it equivalent so they can classify people who smash windows in protest as “violent criminals” in order to increase the penalties which is a complete mischaracterization. If the act of vandalism has knock on effects then those are separate from the act itself and should be dealt with separately.
Property is not people though.
Otherwise shorting companies would also be terrorism.
Only if you’re shorting them to further a political goal.
Those are the “goodie” terrorists… The fascists!
He’s talking about the “baddie” terrorists… The antifascists!
Their goal is also to normalize political persecution through designating everything antifascist as a crime.
