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.
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.
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.