In the face of the climate crisis and unprecedented wealth inequality we’re imagining, and working toward lives no longer guided and marked by overconsumption, environmental devastation and dreams blocked by lack of opportunity based on economic class. So, yep, I’m anti-fascism and have a problem with capitalism. Does that make me a terrorist?
So 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because people in the twin towers were responsible for many deaths?
I don’t see the point of trying to shift the goal posts. Everyone is responsible for many deaths, the question is whether you believe in the classical style of warfare where the losing side has survivors that surrender out of fear. The “anti terrorist” crowd believe that’s just inherently wrong, killing should be strategically designed to wipe out the people it could coerce. They believe nobody can use “intimidation” or “negotiation” when reason fails because it would be coercive. Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.” I just think that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing, they’re just extremely sick and insane for thinking it’s better to wipe out all “enemies,” and pretending they can avoid “terrorism” themselves, while they actually do it constantly in the process of seemingly trying to wipe out enemies.
Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.”
Ehhh…
I feel like you are generalising a lot of variance into “anti terror” crowd. There are layers to non-violence and people have different beliefs.
Also, in the Healthcare case, the target was MUCH more directly connected to the harm that is acted against, as well as in intent and severity, than the victims in 9/11. He was the target, and I don’t see anything like intent to invoke fear in the general public.
Other healthcare CEOs count as “the general public”
But you definitely have valid grounds to consider it subjective. While I mentioned it for comparison, a religious extremist targeting the janitor in the world trade center is not the same as someone justifiably targeting Brian Thompson
So 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because people in the twin towers were responsible for many deaths?
I don’t see the point of trying to shift the goal posts. Everyone is responsible for many deaths, the question is whether you believe in the classical style of warfare where the losing side has survivors that surrender out of fear. The “anti terrorist” crowd believe that’s just inherently wrong, killing should be strategically designed to wipe out the people it could coerce. They believe nobody can use “intimidation” or “negotiation” when reason fails because it would be coercive. Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.” I just think that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing, they’re just extremely sick and insane for thinking it’s better to wipe out all “enemies,” and pretending they can avoid “terrorism” themselves, while they actually do it constantly in the process of seemingly trying to wipe out enemies.
Ehhh…
I feel like you are generalising a lot of variance into “anti terror” crowd. There are layers to non-violence and people have different beliefs.
Also, in the Healthcare case, the target was MUCH more directly connected to the harm that is acted against, as well as in intent and severity, than the victims in 9/11. He was the target, and I don’t see anything like intent to invoke fear in the general public.
Other healthcare CEOs count as “the general public”
But you definitely have valid grounds to consider it subjective. While I mentioned it for comparison, a religious extremist targeting the janitor in the world trade center is not the same as someone justifiably targeting Brian Thompson
It was meant to invoke fear in other CEOs