• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    This is the inevitable conclusion of decades of justifying endless violence by labeling people “terrorists”. The word has no meaning other than “target of the state”. And now the state is this.

    • FantasmaNaCasca@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      Português
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      "It was at dawn of Abril 25 of 1974, during the parade of Practical Cavalry School, in Santarém, that Salgueiro Maia uttered the famous speech:

      ‘Gentlemen, as everyone knows, there are various modalities of State.
      The socialist States,
      the capitalist States,
      and the state we came to.
      Well, in this solemn night, we will end the state we came to!
      So, whoever wants to come with me, we go to Lisbon and we will end this.
      Whoever is voluntary, go out, form up.
      Whoever doesn’t want to go out, stay here.’

      Every 240 of those man that eard this words, spoken so firmly, so characteristic of Salgueiro Maia, formed up immediately in front of him.

      Next they went to Lisbon and marched on the dictatorship."

      And with more and more military/citizens joining in through the day, they ended a 41 year old dictatorship that kept Portugal in poverty and ignorence.
      The only good things about Salazar (Slytherin…yeah Rowling used his name) was (mostly) keeping Portugal out of the wars (mostly) and dying.

  • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    But it is domestic terrorism, it completely fits that definition. I’m not saying I really give a shit, but let’s be clear what’s happening.

    • SpookyLights@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Is it though? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal by creating fear in a population. The people who are targeting Tesla dealerships aren’t directing their message to the general population, they’re directing it to one Nazi in particular.

    • lemming741@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This is basically like that time Jimmy Carter’s peanut fields were torched because of high gasoline prices

      • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I mean, if someone was to burn a dealership down, that would be rather similar. I assumed a certain severity of attack, because that word implies a degree of violence to me. I may be wrong there. I don’t think graffiti could ever be accurately described as an attack, for example.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah the issue is somehow white nationalist mows down a mall = troubled teen, liberal (re: minority because nuance and reality are things they struggle to grasp) attacks on private property resulting in zero death or major injury = domestic terrorism.

      Iirc they didn’t even label the assassination attempt as domestic terrorism.

      • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Maybe I’m missing something if the “attacks” in question are water balloons or whatever. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that something more severe was implied by that word. Like arson, or similar.

        • ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          “Think before you drink before you drive me mad.”

          Carefully chosen words to make people go “oh, that’s terrible” and side with what Trump is saying.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

      • SaltSong@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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)

        • mako@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Who is the intended audience of that comment that you believe will equate sources of food and water to swasticars?

          • SaltSong@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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.

            • mako@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              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.

        • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Then your act of vandalism/sabotage would have effects that harms people. Is this so difficult for you to understand? SMH.

          • SaltSong@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”

            Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.

        • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

          • red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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.

            • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 hours ago

              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.

    • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      It’s not terrorism if it’s not even trying to kill people. That’s just destruction of property or arson in this case.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Those are the “goodie” terrorists… The fascists!

      He’s talking about the “baddie” terrorists… The antifascists!

      Their goal is also to normalize political persecution through designating everything antifascist as a crime.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Guess that means they get a free pardon. The opposition should start calling them Patriots & promising them pardons.