Politics, theory about terrorism
More people need to realise that terrorism is a bullshit concept. The definitions are usually constructed to privilege states
Like the UN definition of: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes". Police use of tear gas is clearly intended to provoke fear, so it's OK because it's endorsed by the state
The FBI: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals". If you're forcefully evicted to make space for a mine it ok because the state says its OK, but if the local community forcefully evicts the mine?
Terrorism is just political violence that the state commenting on it doesn't like. It's no different from any other political violence.
Ok, this is why people need to understand the actual definitions of terrorism (see previous post in this thread)
Seen elsewhere on mastodon: "a terrorist is a very clearly defined thing and the response to them should always be to [kill] them"
This take is just arguing for states to have carte blanche to murder whoever they want. This is the end ideological goal of the "war on terror"; be able to declare people bad and kill them
Ok, this is why people need to understand the actual definitions of terrorism (see previous post in this thread)
@Dangerous_beans insert the class quote "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
