You're viewing a single thread.
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.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
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.
Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?
The relative risk of trying to do that is such that you are highly likely to injure someone. If no one got hurt in that type of attack, it's by sheer luck.
Also, not a soul thinks people attacking unpurchased vehicles is a threat to escalate to hurting people.
It's a crime, but not everything is 'terrorism'.
What about something different, farther away from civilian population centers being destroyed? Like, I don't know, Mount Rushmore being exploded? Or someone burning down an empty library? Maybe someone gaining access to an airport and throwing a molotov at the turbines of an empty jumbo jet?
These examples are explicitly more severe than damaging Teslas. But only few would argue any of those aren't terrorism, be it perpetrated by anti-imperialist Native Americans (exploding Mount Rushmore), by anti-intellectual fascists (burning down a library) or by environmentalists (molotov @ plane). All of these groups would have political motives which is really all that's needed for damaging property to be terrorism.
Whether terrorism can or cannot ever be justified is a different question. But I'd argue attacking Tesla dealerships through violent means is domestic terrorism - be it shooting them up or setting them on fire.
Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.
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.
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.
I wonder where you were when that guy showed up and beat Paul Pelosi almost to death with a hammer. Laughing probably, along with most Republicans
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.
Just another Elon stan
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.
Yeah, I get the argument that you're trying to make, but this is a really shitty time to play devil's advocate.
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.
It's not terrorism if it's not even trying to kill people. That's just destruction of property or arson in this case.
What you're missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an "attack"
just put maga on the sign