"Terrorism" charges
"Terrorism" charges
35 comments
-
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and vice versa.
Terrorism is violence in order to spread fear. The poor CEOs are shitting themselves right now.
Problem is, generally it's defined as violence against civilians. I'm not sure billionaires fit that category.
-
Well not really. Terrorism is violence + politics. The only issue here is that Republicans (all major corporate leaders) have "politicized every single issue ever, especially human rights. Therefore this is terrorism.
-
Well, yeah, there are political or ideological aims, which are believed to be achievable through fear. The violence itself is not meant to achieve much directly, but it spreads fear in the population that works towards some goal or another.
Violence + politics is just war.
-
-
-
Terrorism is absolutely a socially constructed idea. The current idea of the charge is based on the moral concept that violence in pursuit of religious or political goals is unacceptable. (You don't have to accept that but we absolutely teach it in American school so most people just reflexively believe it)
Terrorism as it's original idea was violence against civilians to terrify them into acting in a certain way. Like the KKK burning a cross in someone's yard to warn them or a lynching where the entire town attends and takes pictures.
That said a single assassination where the shooter disappears afterwards, leaves no calling cards, makes no announcement, no demands, doesn't really fit the profile of actual terrorism. They're charging terrorism because it fits the letter of the law and it's automatically discrediting to many Americans. Not because it's actually Terrorism.
-
Calling him a terrorist is supposed to make people afraid to support him otherwise they might be stripped of their rights and tortured in gitmo.
It's like a terrorism reverse uno card. Use the charge of terrorism to cause terror and prevent people from organizing against the greedy, insatiable monsters that run this country by greasing each other's hands.
-
I don't think most people are afraid that protesting will get them labeled as terrorists. This isn't a state that's used terrorism charges against protestors like Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Oklahoma, or New York.
Goddamnitalltohell. I'm going to go live in a cave.
-
-
leaves no calling cards
I think the engravings on the bullets were intended as a message. It seemed like he expected to be caught with his "manifesto" as well. Not saying that's sufficient to call it terrorism, but it does show a bit of intent beyond anger/revenge.
-
The bullets could also easily just be passion though. Calling cards are usually unmistakable. Like their name sake where actual cards are left on victims. A terroristic manifesto generally also has a warning, something meant to inspire fear or obedience. Osama Bin Laden for example had one demand, that western governments leave the middle east.
You could be right though, he could just be a terrorist with a bad PR sense.
-
-
Can you explain to me the term “socially constructed “, and why it is so relevant here? Isn’t all of law, and the rules we live by, socially constructed?
-
To an extent yes they are. Things like speeding, where and who you can have sex with, are really good examples of social constructs. Things like murder are things we intrinsically understand as wrong, even without laws. It's instinctual.
The fact that it is a social construct is important because society can decide to change it. It's not actually part of our core programming the way murder is. Look at the number of people saying this is self defense. That's society discussing how the terrorism label is used because survival is also a core human instinct. This is why it's really hard to hold your breath until you pass out or purposely attempt to breathe water.
In classical ethics and philosophy this conflict falls under the Harm Principal. At what point does the CEO's conduct pose an existential danger to those around them? Thus permitting the act of murder as a method of survival.
Throwing the social construct of Terrorism in there confuses that core question because it reminds us that we've all been taught that using violence to achieve your goals is wrong, unless society says it's right. (Like declaring war)
So now we face a bunch of questions. Is this actually terrorism? Or is this a moment of society approving the use of violence?
-
-
-
You know who had a family and killed less people than the CEO?
Bin Laden.
-
We should feel worse for Bin Laden. His family was huge, and he was a way nicer guy.
-
-
"Terrorism" actually means someone is doing a crime to make a group of people afraid to do something. You know, instill terror.
-
I hear a lot of Americans are afraid to call an ambulance cus it might ruin them financially
-
That makes this man a counterterrorist.
Rush B.
-
-
Which of her examples doesn't fit your definition?
-
-
America where people do only one thing and one thing only, removed and moan online. We will never learn from the French, will we?
-
What would you have us learn from the French? Did you stop your history lesson at the guillotines? Maybe you should read about what happened next...
-
Yeah, Napoleon, King, Napoleon, King, Napoleon, Parliament. They got there eventually.
-
Do you think elites destroying people's lives will revise their policies of oppression?
That's how these things work. They extract until society collapases and then we have a reshuffle and new batch comes in with some sort of new social contract.
These parasites are looking to double down here.
More dead CEOs are needed for them to get the message it seems.
Boardrooms, not class rooms.
-
-
I'm saving that! That's a good one!
35 comments