Sexy. Be safe, remember kids, always use use PPE when committing domestic terrorism!
Edit: fucking lol you guys I support what they are doing. I just think it’s funny that it probably fits the technical definition of domestic terrorism even if we don’t consider it that.
Terrorism can be based as well. The state uses terrorism all the time and it’s fine, and they call any dissent they don’t like, no matter how peaceful, terrorism.
John Brown was a based terrorist. The British Suffragette movement had a bunch of based terrorists. Mother Jones was based, and as much of a terrorist as most of Al Qaeda (i.e. not personally involved in terrorist attacks, but supporting movements that did engage in terrorism).
All you need is a sufficiently abhorrent status quo and terrorists who are otherwise decent human beings.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Specific to Australia, terrorism: Terrorism is defined as “an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious and ideological or group cause”.
How much do you want to bet this, or actions like this get called terrorism? It fits the definition if you want it to, which is all that matters. Yes, it’s bullshit if they call it terrorism, which is why the word needs to have its negative connotation stripped. There have been good terrorists in the past and there will be in the future. The word has no mention of it being done for evil purposes.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Kill something? That doesn’t even make sense unless talking about animals.
It is not commonly accepted that property damage is violence. And in this case it wasn’t even property damage, but just a temporary disruption of the operation of the port.
Edit: that Australian legal definition is so hilariously vague that is is clear that who ever wrote that was perfectly aware what they were doing and for what purpose.
that Australian legal definition is so hilariously vague that is is clear that who ever wrote that was perfectly aware what they were doing and for what purpose.
It’s like that for most nations. It effectively allows them to define any action against the status quo to be terrorism. The state is allowed to send the police (or other entities of violence) to attack dissidents, but you aren’t allowed to use any “violence” (aka disruption) to fight against them.
I don’t think this protest causes harm, serious damage, a public safety risk, or serious interference to critical infrastructure, so it’s not terrorism by Australian law.
Terrorism doesn’t have an agreed upon definition, we’ve charged people with terrorism for occupying a forest, we’ve also done it for flying a plane into a building. The only unifying factor is a political action the government doesn’t sanction.
In the absence of consensus my opinion prevails (because I said so), and I say the thing OP referenced doesn’t count as terrorism. Anyone who disagrees with me is, to put it simply, wrong.
(Occupying a forest sure as Hell doesn’t count either, by the way – and that’s one I can speak about with particular authority, being a resident of a nearby neighborhood and personal acquaintances with some of the people involved. Frankly, the Atlanta Police Department and Georgia State Patrol are the terrorists here: their actions have not been legitimate enforcing of laws, but rather the acts of a gang trying to claim turf to build their jackbooted-thuggery theme park.)
Except people don’t use it that way. If you say “I live in Syria and I am afraid of a terrorist attack”, 99/100 people would not understand what you said to possibly mean that you were afraid of the US drone striking you.
If they did, and anyone can use the term to refer to most any political organization and action that is associated with attacks on non-combatants, it becomes useless.
You would be surprised how many people outside of the west correctly identify US drone strikes as terrorist attacks. And no, that does not make the term meaningless at all.
I disagree. The governments try to make all terrorism sound evil, and they call anything they don’t like terrorism. The word needs to either stop being used (which isn’t going to happen) or associated with as many good and relatively peaceful things as possible as well. As long as the state has a monopoly on terrorism and anyone labeled a terrorist is viewed as evil, the state has all the power on dissent.
Because by using their definition consistently you ridicule and defang the phrase, same as ‘queer’. Even by your definition, there have been good terrorists like the abolitionist John Brown, so it is in everyone’s best interest to stop acting like terrorism is worse than fascism.
If you’re terrified at the thought of a coal company being mildly inconvenienced, check those perls you’re clutching; they might actually be diamonds by now.
I think disrupting national infrastructure can be considered terrorism, it just amused me thinking of good guys non violently being “good guy” terrorists
Sexy. Be safe, remember kids, always use use PPE when committing domestic terrorism!
Edit: fucking lol you guys I support what they are doing. I just think it’s funny that it probably fits the technical definition of domestic terrorism even if we don’t consider it that.
This is not terrorism, it’s industrial sabotage, which in the context of the coal industry is based.
Terrorism can be based as well. The state uses terrorism all the time and it’s fine, and they call any dissent they don’t like, no matter how peaceful, terrorism.
Terrorism has to be violent and induce ‘terror’ by definition.
John Brown was a based terrorist. The British Suffragette movement had a bunch of based terrorists. Mother Jones was based, and as much of a terrorist as most of Al Qaeda (i.e. not personally involved in terrorist attacks, but supporting movements that did engage in terrorism).
All you need is a sufficiently abhorrent status quo and terrorists who are otherwise decent human beings.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Specific to Australia, terrorism: Terrorism is defined as “an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious and ideological or group cause”.
These climate protesters in the US were convicted of terrorism.
How much do you want to bet this, or actions like this get called terrorism? It fits the definition if you want it to, which is all that matters. Yes, it’s bullshit if they call it terrorism, which is why the word needs to have its negative connotation stripped. There have been good terrorists in the past and there will be in the future. The word has no mention of it being done for evil purposes.
Kill something? That doesn’t even make sense unless talking about animals.
It is not commonly accepted that property damage is violence. And in this case it wasn’t even property damage, but just a temporary disruption of the operation of the port.
Edit: that Australian legal definition is so hilariously vague that is is clear that who ever wrote that was perfectly aware what they were doing and for what purpose.
It’s like that for most nations. It effectively allows them to define any action against the status quo to be terrorism. The state is allowed to send the police (or other entities of violence) to attack dissidents, but you aren’t allowed to use any “violence” (aka disruption) to fight against them.
According to the attorney-general’s department, these are the criteria.
I don’t think this protest causes harm, serious damage, a public safety risk, or serious interference to critical infrastructure, so it’s not terrorism by Australian law.
Terrorism has a clear definition. Just because some people use it wrongly doesn’t mean it’s OK to do so.
Link to a reply I just made to a comment above: https://lemmy.zip/comment/12240779
Things that are incorrectly declared “terrorism” by their opponents? Yes, absolutely. Things that actually fit that definition? No.
Protesting isn’t terrorism.
Terrorism doesn’t have an agreed upon definition, we’ve charged people with terrorism for occupying a forest, we’ve also done it for flying a plane into a building. The only unifying factor is a political action the government doesn’t sanction.
Which is ridiculous and should be called out as such. Meanwhile we’re letting grown men with guns threaten kids over religious ideas.
It’s like we all forgot what terrorism actually is.
It has a clear definition. Maybe look it up some time?
In the absence of consensus my opinion prevails (because I said so), and I say the thing OP referenced doesn’t count as terrorism. Anyone who disagrees with me is, to put it simply, wrong.
(Occupying a forest sure as Hell doesn’t count either, by the way – and that’s one I can speak about with particular authority, being a resident of a nearby neighborhood and personal acquaintances with some of the people involved. Frankly, the Atlanta Police Department and Georgia State Patrol are the terrorists here: their actions have not been legitimate enforcing of laws, but rather the acts of a gang trying to claim turf to build their jackbooted-thuggery theme park.)
deleted by creator
Except that includes most states, especially the US that kills 10 unintended for every intended target. It’s as useless of a term as “authoritarian”.
Of course this includes many states. That doesn’t mean the term is useless, you just don’t like the implication of that.
Except people don’t use it that way. If you say “I live in Syria and I am afraid of a terrorist attack”, 99/100 people would not understand what you said to possibly mean that you were afraid of the US drone striking you.
If they did, and anyone can use the term to refer to most any political organization and action that is associated with attacks on non-combatants, it becomes useless.
You would be surprised how many people outside of the west correctly identify US drone strikes as terrorist attacks. And no, that does not make the term meaningless at all.
deleted by creator
I disagree. The governments try to make all terrorism sound evil, and they call anything they don’t like terrorism. The word needs to either stop being used (which isn’t going to happen) or associated with as many good and relatively peaceful things as possible as well. As long as the state has a monopoly on terrorism and anyone labeled a terrorist is viewed as evil, the state has all the power on dissent.
Why the fuck would I accept their definition?
Because by using their definition consistently you ridicule and defang the phrase, same as ‘queer’. Even by your definition, there have been good terrorists like the abolitionist John Brown, so it is in everyone’s best interest to stop acting like terrorism is worse than fascism.
If you’re terrified at the thought of a coal company being mildly inconvenienced, check those perls you’re clutching; they might actually be diamonds by now.
This is a far cry from terrorism
Define terrorism
The clear definition of terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political goals.
Won’t anyone think of the shareholders!
Are you implying this is bad or good? I can’t tell. It’s an unmitigated good thing, by the way
I think disrupting national infrastructure can be considered terrorism, it just amused me thinking of good guys non violently being “good guy” terrorists
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡