Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Annonymous threatens attack on root DNSs March 31st
Kind of reminds me of the time OWS blockaded local bank branches or shut down the port.
Yep. By many standards, the occupy movement have had a few points where they crossed the line from activism into low level terrorism. The natural excesses of the mob, nothing more. It could have fit the legal definition if someone had seen fit to prosecute.
Terrorism, American definition = any group, state, or ideology which positions itself outside the US imperial power structure.
Terrorism, world's definition = any group, state, or ideology which flaunts international law and uses coercion and force to impose it's will, i.e., US imperial policy.
If burning a cross on someone's lawn is terrorism (it certainly is, as it's a terroristic threat), then I could see certain internet attacks as terrorism.
If burning a cross on someone's lawn is terrorism (it certainly is, as it's a terroristic threat), then I could see certain internet attacks as terrorism.
Well burning a cross is not freaking terrorism.
If I go home and burn a cross tonight in my backyard, I am a terrorist? Give me a freaking break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
What is terrorism to you? Because I see a lot of people disagreeing with you.
A group that uses violence or violent coercion upon another group for political reasons.
--------------
To use the cross burning example:
Burning a cross is not terrorism because the threat is not credible, not is it directed at individuals. A rational person is not going to fear for their life or change their behaviour because some yokel burned a cross somewhere in their city.
Conversely, a group persistently attacking churches is terrorism, particularly if they actually target innocent individuals. If this group keeps blowing up churches and killing people who are using them, this is a use of violence as a political means. It is also a credible threat to people's lives within that group to coerce them into acting differently (ie not going to church).
In regards to the internet:
There is no way this is terrorism because there is no violence, nor physical threat to anyone they are 'attacking.' Shutting down a companies website is not a violent, nor credible threat to anyone's well-being. Calling what Anon does terrorism is directly promoting the bastardization of the word that is so prevalent in contemporary culture.
The overuse of the word terrorism has many adverse effects. Not least of which is the way we frame people who commit crimes as terrorists. By labeling everyone under the sun as a terrorist, it becomes essentially a cakewalk for the state to use repressive means to either quell opposition or abuse their powers as protector of the people. If someone who opposes the state in a minor way or participates in sedition is framed a terrorist, this strips away all your civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution. The US has passed a number of laws that give 'enemy combatants' no political due process of law. If people actively engage in the overzealous framing of people as terrorists, then you are putting perfectly legitimate citizens of your country at risk.
But for some reason people can't understand this, and have eaten up the National Security Doctrineish nature of "Terrorism." Terrorism is the new vessel of painting legitimate opposition members to the state as criminals, shifting away from the communist dichotomy that was prevalent throughout the later half century. The state always establishes a mantra of radicalism by ideology. What I mean by that is that they will legitimize the marginalization of certain groups by declaring them a threat to the well-being of the state. They do this for political legitimization, and as a way of influencing opposition groups. As the famous words of Goebells:
Quote:
The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it.
If I go home and burn a cross tonight in my backyard, I am a terrorist? Give me a freaking break.
Of course that's not terrorism.
But if you put on your white dunce cap, plant that cross in the front yard of your black neighbor, and light it on fire, it's a whole different situation.
But if you put on your white dunce cap, plant that cross in the front yard of your black neighbor, and light it on fire, it's a whole different situation.
I don't recall the issue of terrorism, or even any mention of the word, ever coming up in Virginia vs. Black.
I don't recall the issue of terrorism, or even any mention of the word, ever coming up in Virginia vs. Black.
Really? The words terror, terrorism, terrorize, etc. appear 16 times in the Supreme Court's opinion. Fear appears 21 times. Intimidate appears 69 times.
Just what do you think that case was about?
P.S. Speaking of messaging, when trying to downplay things like cross burning, quoting a guy like Goebells isn't helpful to your cause.
Really? The words terror, terrorism, terrorize, etc. appear 16 times in the Supreme Court's opinion. Fear appears 21 times. Intimidate appears 69 times.
I just pdf word searched 'terrorism' in Chief Justice O'Connor's opinion, and also the syllabus of the case and the word came up once. And that one time it was in an external quote, not of the words of any of the Justices.
Furthermore...the word terrorism does not come up in Scalia's opinion, Souter's opinion, or the concurrent opinions.
It comes up one more time, in the dissenting opinions. And once again, it is in an external quote. And unsurprisingly, comes from a quote of a newspaper.
Quote:
P.S. Speaking of messaging, when trying to downplay things like cross burning, quoting a guy like Goebells isn't helpful to your cause.
Quoting one of the true masters of propaganda in reference to the bastardization of words and concepts is wholly relevant IMO.
Secondly, I am in no shape or form 'downplaying things like cross burning.' Not sure where you got that idea.
I just pdf word searched 'terrorism' in Chief Justice O'Connor's opinion, and also the syllabus of the case and the word came up once. And that one time it was in an external quote, not of the words of any of the Justices.
Furthermore...the word terrorism does not come up in Scalia's opinion, Souter's opinion, or the concurrent opinions.
It comes up one more time, in the dissenting opinions. And once again, it is in an external quote. And unsurprisingly, comes from a quote of a newspaper.
You're only searching some of the opinions, and you're only searching one version of the word. Sorry, but you're missing a lot of the discussion of terror. Terroristic is used three times, for example. Terrorist is used twice. Terrorizing is used once. Terrorize is used as well. Terror itself is used many times.
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[4][5]
It's a horribly wishy washy term. I also agree that it gets thrown around way too easily since 9/11.
It's preposterous to label Annon and terrorists. I challenge anybody to do it without sounding like FOX news corporate shill.
I agree that terrorism is used far too loosely. Even in the burning cross context, I wouldn't say all uses are terrorism. Using it to intimidate one family isn't what I'd call terrorism. Using it to intimidate a community or a bunch of families certainly is terrorism.
I agree that terrorism is used far too loosely. Even in the burning cross context, I wouldn't say all uses are terrorism. Using it to intimidate one family isn't what I'd call terrorism. Using it to intimidate a community or a bunch of families certainly is terrorism.
Good old buddahsmoka. Find the most ridiculous point to back up his logic, all the while looking down his nose at you like your the one out to lunch.
I agree the terrorism tag is too widely used, but "If I flew my own plane into my own building, WOULD THAT BE TERRORISM????"
I mean, wow, you really got us with that one. LMAO.
