←back to thread

147 points Kye | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.225s | source | bottom
Show context
Grimblewald ◴[] No.45341020[source]
Makes sense. If something is terrorisms has always been about alignment of values and to a facist, anti-facists would 100% register as terrorists. Good to see the current US admin admitting it more openly, not that they have been particularly coy about it the last few months.
replies(1): >>45341149 #
Ancapistani ◴[] No.45341149[source]
Terrorism is the use of violence (or threat thereof) in pursuit of political objectives, against the public.
replies(1): >>45343627 #
1. Grimblewald ◴[] No.45343627[source]
Then what makes any military endevour non-terrorist? Isn't it all politically motivated in the end?
replies(4): >>45344021 #>>45347481 #>>45350862 #>>45356669 #
2. Simulacra ◴[] No.45344021[source]
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The argument will never be won.
replies(1): >>45354601 #
3. ModernMech ◴[] No.45347481[source]
Better propaganda.
4. queenkjuul ◴[] No.45350862[source]
You've almost got it
replies(1): >>45354616 #
5. Grimblewald ◴[] No.45354601[source]
Right, the point being if you terrorist is someone who fights fascism, is that not the same as soft admitting to being a fascist?
6. Grimblewald ◴[] No.45354616[source]
I think we might be on the same page. The point being that terrorism is anything that tries to push political ideals contrary to the status quo you wish to either enact or uphold. So then if you label anti-fascism as terrorism, is that not the same as soft admitting to being a fascist?
7. Ancapistani ◴[] No.45356669[source]
Military action should be against military targets, for the purpose of disrupting the enemy. Terrorism is against people who are not military targets, for the purpose of instilling fear and with the end goal of effecting political change.

In good faith - are you confused about the difference here, or trying to find the specific dividing line?