|
speng31b posted:they found a terrorism that's highly disruptive, difficult to stop, difficult to find the people who did it, easy to pull off. seems like it's here to stay Speaking as someone who's done some risk assessments, it'd be pretty trivial to do terrorism on public water systems too so let's hope they don't put that together
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
speng31b posted:turns out crumbling infrastructure is a weak point in society It's more that defending against whack a doo morons isn't really a thing. There really aren't a lot of people trying to do indiscriminate attacks against civilians other than governmental organizations. Terrorists have ideologies and want to hurt people they've classified as bad. Or if they just wanna kill people they're just mass shooters because that takes about 30 minutes of effort and those guys are all being jacked off into killing a bunch of people by the fbi as part of a gladio style operation or whatever Merry Christmas
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
American nazi terrorists all think the turner diaries is a documentary and all it will take to kick off the race war is a terrorist attack. Usually the fbi is ginning them up to go murder people a la mcveigh or countless mass shooters. I don't see what their being delusional assholes with poo poo brains getting egged on by another white supremacist terrorist group (the fbi) has to do with them being terrorists or not
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
My point is the fbi is basically contracting out its historical nazi terrorism. It's neoliberalism!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
Weka posted:Blowing things up is not terrorism per se. 9-11 was terrorism because it was designed to make people scared it could happen again, or a different type of attack by similar actors could take place. McVeigh on the other hand afaik saw himself as an insurgent performing a revenge attack on the government. These are different ideas but because America has spent the past two decades labeling people protecting their homeland from invaders as terrorists, hamburger brained individuals cannot tell the difference. The usual definition of terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence to achieve political ends. If a nazi's goal in shooting up a substation is causing a race war then that nazi is doing terrorism because their end is white supremacy/genocide and their means is violence. McVeigh was a nazi that wanted the white majority to rise up and kill all the non-whites. He was a terrorist and so were his fbi handlers. He went to elohim city lol, that's a fed/nazi compound If I'm not understanding you correctly here, please don't take offense - I'm half a bottle deep here
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I mean by that standard all war is terrorism, which is kinda true but there's a useful distinction somewhere in there Ok, then what's a definition of terrorism that doesn't include these events?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Weka posted:To qualify as terrorism there must an intent to cause fear. It's the use of terror as a political tool. The threat of violence towards political ends is something inherent in a state. Personally, I think the intent to cause fear is contained within the desire for genocide and race war, but your fears may vary
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
Weka posted:Sometimes sure, but the fear is the goal not the method. Sometimes genocide is just about the victims not being around any more. I don't think so. Their idea of how a race war starts is based on their attacks causing their victims to lash out in fear. The nazis want their victims to be scared because they think that would make them feel powerful but they also want their victims to react in fear because they imagine that's how the battle lines get drawn. Their idea is that they attack blacks, blacks react, and then that reaction gets the rest of the whites on their side. So fear is definitely one of their means. They want their victims scared and they want the rest of the whites scared.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
Weka posted:Do you have some evidence to support this? It makes sense but I am unaware of any. That article calls mason a terrorist in the first paragraph. And then there are all the references to the turner diaries which was written by mason's mentor and explicitly describes using terrorism to overthrow the us government and have a nazi revolution and a race war. and charles manson, who said he was trying to do a false flag black power killing to initiate a race war And there's this: quote:To some Nazis, the setbacks they experienced – the rally itself was not allowed to even start, and afterward there was a subsequent media backlash and widespread online deplatforming – were all a vindication of Mason’s thesis: The strategy of holding legal rallies in public would always end in failure. Everything was stacked against white supremacists, they reasoned, and there was no way to succeed if they acted within the law. The only thing to do was either to drop out of society altogether or go underground and start planning terrorist attacks. After Charlottesville, #ReadSiege soared in popularity as a hashtag on social media. So that article repeatedly refers to mason as a terrorist and cites several of his influences, who are also white supremacist terrorists. Also it mentions how mcveigh was inspired by the turner diaries. It goes on to describe how atomwaffen is based on his horseshit. I'm not sure how this is supposed to show that his nazi group is not terroristic I guess my source for calling nazis terrorists is basically that the nazis all say "we are terrorists." They're not clever about it or anything. Just a bunch of dipshits with double digit iqs regurgitating the turner diaries, which describes using fear to get the whites to support genocide. And he only supports other groups attacking the state because he thinks it will galvanize the whites through fear. That was an interesting article I wouldn't recommend reading the turner diaries though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:James Mason also did time in prison for child porn Then later he was arrested for raping a child (acquitted) who he subsequently stalked and threatened with a gun, which got him back in jail for a few years. Pretty hosed up guy, imho
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 05:21
|
|
|
Weka posted:The SPLC seems to be using a similar definition to the one you posted, something like illegally using violence for political ends. As are these nazis. As well as being so broad as to be all but useless, this sort of definition is used by the west to smear it's enemies. I think for practical discussions, especially from a leftist perspective, we need a narrower definition. I don't think leftists need new definitions of words that are different than the usual definitions. That kinda stuff just makes it harder to communicate. Here's the oxford definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. They include the word unlawful specifically as a cutout for war, cops, and governmental actions in general. And that quote you pulled contains this: quote:Amid the chaos, the Nazis would have an opportunity to mobilize the white masses and take power. How are they mobilizing the white masses without fear? Are the whites' manchurian candidate trigger phrases going to be activated and cause them to do genocide? No, they think chaos leads to fear leads to nazis in power. Which is similar to how the original nazis took power electorally amidst a coordinated wave of terror and false flag attacks I've read a few pages of the turner diaries. It's just poorly written garbage so it's a waste of time. The synopsis is fine. It seems like the main problem you have with calling nazis terrorists is that this would mean that any violent revolution or resistance is terrorism. But if terrorism is violence targeting civilians then that probably doesn't include revolutionary violence. John brown attacked an armory to get weapons. Not a terrorist. Mcveigh blew up a building to start a race war. Terrorist Iraqi resistance targeted invading imperial forces. Not terrorists People with power are necessarily going to call anyone who opposes then terrorists, though, so I don't know what you can do about that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
If you wanna determine whether they're terrorists or just killers you have to look at their motivations because knowing their motivations is necessary to determine whether it's terrorism. Since we can't crack their heads open and see what's inside we have to rely on what they say and what the things that inspired them say. Like i said earlier, the powerful will just describe anyone who opposes them as terrorists.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
I think that's included under "rely on what they say "
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Tbc none of these nazis are a larger threat than their immediate targets because they're all morons without any larger scale plans that make any kind of sense and they're mostly being entrapped by the feds. Whether the feds are intentionally allowing some of them to commit attacks as part of a years of lead style op is up for speculation, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:so is "terrorism" just synonymous with "political violence"? if so why even use it? I really think people, after 9/11, people feel like terrorism means "extra evil" and if you don't say something is terrorism you're saying that it's not that bad actually and that makes you a bad nasty guy we all have to hate Terrorism means political violence by non-state actors. Whether those actors are capable of accomplishing their political goals through terrorism is irrelevant to the definition of the word.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:and political violence means as long as they or anyone else can say or imply its politically motivated it is, so terrorism is just synonymous with all violence that doesn't spring from, like, specific untreatable mental illnesses Yeah, terrorism is a pretty meaningless word mostly used for propaganda purposes but it is correct to use it to describe nazis shooting up substations or the mall if they're doing that in service of a political goal
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:when you care more about your pet conspiracy theories than the actual people who have been and could be harmed/killed by nazi terrorists, it is time to log off and talk to real people who aren't just other sadbrains weirdos on the internet. Not clear on what you're saying here. You think i don't care about people getting killed by nazis?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Aha! Time for the thread to descend into a pointless slap fight! Have at you!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
Never!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
Weka posted:It's not that I'm suggesting we use a new definition, it's that I'm resisting the new definition (which lacks the causing fear part) that is being pushed to change people's ideological framework Ok, now i understand your point. I think that's probably not a fight you can win in the broader world, though. I've only ever heard the definition i was familiar with Weka posted:
I disagree with this, though. They thought they would shoot up substations and people would die and the city would plunge into chaos. Which probably wouldn't happen anyway. Hospitals in Maryland are required to have i think 48 hours of emergency fuel and adequate generators and most heating in Baltimore is natural gas based plus it's been pretty warm lately anyway so I don't think anyone would have directly died from even a complete power outage. And also there are a few power plants within and around the city. Traffic would be bad and some food would spoil. The sugar plant might go offline. But that's beside the point, the nazis thought they would be killing people. I think if your goal includes killing people, you're trying to use terror, because most people are scared of death. I don't think the chaos and the terror are necessarily entirely separate phases either. If all social and governmental relations were disrupted and chaos reigns, that's going to scare some folks, so isn't that using terror? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVCbRl_Y7M8 Al! posted:no i like this crack their heads open and see whats inside plan worth a shot!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Weka posted:I disagree. This definition would include any lethal violence by non-state actors. The fear cannot be a side effect but must be the primary lever used to make the change the terrorist seeks. The Taliban shelling the soldiers of the USA was not terrorism despite the later crying in fear. Fair point. I'd say the distinction is that the taliban was primarily attacking military targets instead of civilian ones. And the taliban controlled the vast majority of afghanistan prior to the invasion so i would consider them to have been the state authority prior to the invasion. I don't think you can describe attacks against military or police forces as terrorism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2023 13:41
|
|